Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1885-12-31

~ htpaNt3 ioi 'hChUtIo Ncntidii}
to rally around the perpetrator, and
to inaugurate a strenuous effort TO
make a plant public believe he is
saint Of innocence and worthy to
be canonized before he becomes a
better man by reason Of his death
and consequent inability to do any
more mischief as far as his con-
noctions with this mundane sphere
are concerned. An alleged offense
having been committed, il becomes
necessary to make somebody re-
sponsible for il, in about the same
way that in digging a hole in the
ground the dirt must go somewhere.
This seems to be the policy with
many in relation TO the failure To
appoint delegation to Washing
ton. That which is best is often
accidentally done, and the failure to
appoint a delegation cannot be con-
strued into a neglect of duty or a
serious blame, per SC, until its con-
sequences are realized. The fact
that a delegation has been sent to
Washington year after year, regard
less Of necessity or benefits derived,
does not make it imperative that
one should be sent this winter,
though the council determined the
expediency of such n mission. A
gap right here in the delegation
business for ono year is worth the
experiment, as no one well ac-
quainted with our present safe re-
lations and satisfactory condition
of our affairs with the United
States will be afraid to risk chances.
Besides, any threatened invasion
upon our rights can De opposed
from home, as effectively and much
more safely thar by such delega-
tions as We have had for several
years past
Much Us said about the chiefs con-
stitutlSnal prerogative in appoint
ing& delegation, some claiming that
te senate exceeded its duty in not
confirming such as he nominated,
and that in not confirming they
virtually assumed the authority to
dictate TO him. If the chief has
any more constitutional authority
in appointing a delegation than the
senate, it is yet to be deduced in a
more logical way by those who say
he has. The expediency of send
ing a delegation must be first de-
termined by the council, next the
chief comes in with his authority
to recommend, and by the advice
and consent Of the senate appoint
and commission" If the senate
were not to have as much authority
in this matter as the chief, why
should their advice and consent be
consulted-why not appoint with
out such advice and consent? That
he might not abuse his authority
or appoint unsuitable persons is
the purpose Of this restraint. The
senate had the right under the con-
stitution to withhold their advice
and consent until such persons
were recommended with whom
they were satisfied, and with whom,
on account of certain necessary
qualifications and avowed princi-
pies, they could trust the execution
of designated purpose, even if it
were to oppose Phillips and report
the action Of the investigating
committee in his case to the au-
thorities in Washington. That the
chief preferred persons friendly to
Phillips as delegates no one ac
quainted with the facts will deny.
Nor will anyone deny, who under
stood the intentions of the senate.
that their determination was not TO
confirm such, or those uneducated
and not well versed in the intrica-
cies of the English language. The
violent endorsement of Phillips by
the chief to the discomfort and dis
appreciation Of the intelligence of
the nation was, and should be,
cause sufficient for the senate to
withhold their advice and consent
in the confirmation of any person
not avowedly in sympathy with
the purposes they had in view. II
va just as much their right and
privilege to demand certain persons
as delegates, in order to accomplish
certain purposes, as the chief had
TO recommend certain ones who he
knew would carry out his inten-
tons or ceaid be misIedinreiation
TO- them. It was simply a contest
between the chief and senate, one
determined TO sustain a man found
10 be q criminal and the other
equally determined TO rid the ma
ton of him. Right here lies the