Arizona silver belt., 1886-04-03
HOLMAN's REPORT,

White Mountain, or San Carlos reser-
vahon, as alike out Of the question,
Holman also says Crook is in favor Of
extending the elective franchise to the
Apache, as it IS to be presumed, for
tho regard he bears them they might
be enabled to exercise a freeman s
win, at the polls, IN the election Of
territorial, county and precinct officers,
Crook opposition TO dlsarming and
removal Of Indians from the Territory
is inimical to the conceived opinion of
q large majority of the citizens of Ari-
zona, who had hopefully looked for
ward to the day when the Apache
question would be solved By their re-
m3v&. east or west to a base of sup
plies, where they could be more cheap
" fed and subjected to a discipline not
hoped for IN Arizona. Crooks reason
for their retention here, so far as the
army is concerned, is a good one, but
it is not so from 4 civilian standpoint.
Their retention in their old haunts is
an excuse for a military guard, and an
excuse for keeping the army at ITS
maximum strength, which seems q
cherished idea of Crook, and Is, doubt
less, the real reason why be opposes
their being removed or disarmcd.
The question of disarmiug was
squareIy put by Holman. The follow.
ing Is Crooks reply; Il think, decid-
edly, that they should not to be DIS
armed. DIsarming them shows them
that we are AFRAID OF them. never
saw an Indian who was deferred from
going on the warpath for want of
arms and ammunition, for money will
buy anything in this country; and,
besid.s, # The arms were taken from
the Indians, on the San Carlos Reser-
yatiol, thay would not haye a head of
stock left in q year"
Q. They would be left at the mey-
cy of the marauders?" A. Yes, sir;
at the mercy of the rustler5 and cow
boys, and nothing but fear deter
them"
Crock S remarks are a strong redec-
ton upon the integrity of the whites,
which is not warranted by facts. Ari-
zonans, generally, would have nothing
to fear in comparing characters with
the general who makes the charge of
dishonesty, especially in the face of
his order dated Whipplc Barracks,
May Goth, 1884, to sell, at San Carlos,
"about 30 head of cattle, consisting of
steers, COWS and calves on Tuesday,
June &c, 1884, suPpOsing them to have
been stolen by Chiricahuas, in Mexico,
and that, too, after they had been re-
claimed by the alleged Mexican owner
who produced his brand which corre-
spoaded with the brands on the cattle.
The acts of Captain Chas. ?, Egan,
who signed the order Of sale, and LII.
Johnson, who cried the sale and made
title( p to the purchasers Of the cattle,
have not been disavowed by Crook.
Therefore the sale necessarily becomes
his act, and while that is a fact. Meth
er Egan or johnson are relieved from
the responsibility resting upon them
by reason Of their participation IN the
offence complained Of. See section
5533 Z. S. Statutes and made the ap-
plieation for yourself. The order of
sale specifically sets forth that "this
lot of cattle was brought in from Mex
leo by the Chiricahuas," and as those
Indians are ignorant of the law of
meum ct tuum, and not being in the
business Of cattle breeding, it is nat
ural TO suppose they stole them. That
conclusion does not admit Of a doubt.
And now having shown the charac-
ter of some of the thieving Indians
whom Crook proposes to allow to bear
arms, it is pertinent to enquire Of him
when and upon what occasion the San
Carlos Indians have been robbed of
stock by whites or so molestcd in any
way by citizens that he finds it necos-
sary that they should possess arms for
heir protection against { he whites ?
He stufei Holman with that belief
and therefore we ask him to cite a
single instance where Indians, ON that
reservation, have been interfered with
by citizens. or to give the ground for
his belief that unless Indians are
armed "they would not have head Of
stock left in a single year"
His statements have become part
of the Congressional record and have
been Transmitted by associated press
dispatches and printed in every city,
aad hamlet in the United States, and,
therefore, it behooves the people thus
oharay .9ri2ed as cattle thieves to know
what basis Gen Crook had for making
tne Charge. 1t is not the FIRST time
that Crook has slandered Arizonans,
whose standard Of morality was at
least equal to his own. We have a
vivid recollection Of his letter to
Agent 2. P. Wilcox, wherein be was
equally dennnciatory Of Arizonans as