New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-02-02

Standing Bear and Bright Eyes. Eminen
LAWYERS are of the opinion that the POncas
title to 10000 acres of land is good in law
There is complaint in the Army that the laws
relating to promotions and retirements are ad
ministered unjustly.
CAUSE OF MIR. HAYTS REMOVAL.
THE PERSONAL FRIEND TO WHOM THE ARIZONA
NINE WAS SOLD SAID TO HAVE BEEN SON OF
THE Ex COMMISSIONER.
BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.l
WASHINGTON, Feb. la TRIBUNE correspondent
has been engaged for several days in trying to find
ont the cause of Commissioner Hayt's sudden re-
mova the Secretary of the Interior having asserted
that the removal had no connection with the inves-
tpation set on foot by General Fisk. but having de-
clined to say what the real cause was. II is be-
lieved that the true reason has heen ascertained.
1t may be remembered that in the first publica-
ton of the Arizona Mine scandal which appeared
In THE TRIBUNE, it was asserted on the authority
of General Fisk that the proceedings which had
been begun against Agent Hart were suddenly dis
continued. This was after the appearance in Ari-
zona Of one Edward Knapp. in company with
Inspector Hammond. This Edward Knapp was
described as a personal friend" of Commits
sioner Hayt. The statement continued agent
Hart resigned shortly after. No proceedings
were begun against him. After his
resignation it turned out that the mine from which
he forwarded the specimen to Washington, and of
which he and Fuller claimed ownership, had been
sold to Edward Knapp for a small sum. After the
sale there was no further question about it's being
on the reservation. Inspector Hammond's power
to run the lines settled that point in favor of
the new owners. The drafts for payment for the
property were made on William Hogencamp, of
Jersey City. whose bank is in the same building
where Commissioner Hayts Trust Company used to
be. The deed to the mine was taken in the name of
Charles ID. Desheiler. who was a director in Hayts
Trust Company and secretary of his oleomargarine
company. and is associated in business with his SON.
in-law"
Commissioner Hayt replied to this in letter to
THE TRIBUNE, which was published December "a.
1879. In this letter, Mr. Hayt said THE rest of
the article refers to the mining operations of private
parties with which have no concern, inasmuch as
for the last ten years have not had the least inter
est directly or indirectly with any mining interest
whatever. II persons with whom am acquainted,
and as The TRIBUNE says, one of whom has bank
in the same building in which the trust company
was of which Twas director choose to engage 10
mining operations in Arizona, they are at perfect
liberty to do so, and no fair-minded man will hold
me responsible for their acts"
1t is now ascertained, on what is believed entirely
trustworthy authority. that the personal friend "
of Commissioner Hayt was not Edward Knapp
at all, but was Commissioner Hayts son, who trav-
eled in Arizona under an assumed name. This fact
explains the reluctance of Inspector Hammond to
admit the genuneness of the absolution letter to
Hart. 1t explains, too, the reason why Mr. Hayt
entreated Hammond to adhere to the statement
that the letter was q forgery. 1t easily
proves, too, why Mr. Hayt, when General Ham
mond returned to Washington determined not
to shield Hayt longer at the expense
of his own honor, should go to Secretary Schurz,
confess the matter and try to explain-before Ham,
mond's testimony given-that there moth
ing wrong in the little deception practised by Mr..
Hayt and his son, in the connection Of the latter
with the mine transaction and it is easy to see
why this revelation should at once have utterly
shattered the secretsry's confidence in his trusted
reform Commissioner. There is excellent reason
to believe that it because of Withholding in
formation on this subject that Secretary Schurz so
promptly dismissed Hayt.
vestigation Committee of the Board had nothing to
do with Mr.. Hayts sudden burst of confidence in
gard to the mine speculation Mr.. Schurz has been
careful TO explain that the testimony given by Ham
mond on Wednesday had nothing to do with Mr. |
Hayfs removal, because lie had determined on
that before he saw Hammond, or
That was all true, but Mr. Hayt knew what Ham
mond could testify, and Mr.. Hayt Wednesday |
evening went to Secretary Schurz and spent hours
in trying to explain matters satisfactorily. That
was after Mr.. Hayts interview with Hammond in |
which the latter refused to be made q scapegoat,
and is reported to have told the Commissioner that
he must go''
A general press dispatch from Washington |
says: +" The committee investigating the charges pre-
ferrcd against Commissioner Of Indian Affairs Hayt
will probably conclude their work Secretary
clutz tonight said that the report of the committee
would submitted to Board OF Indian Comm
ers meeting IN New-YorH Tuesday next. 1t
yet been determined who viii succeed Mr.. Hayt
as Commissioner OF Indian Affairs"