The Portland daily press., 1891-03-10
Our Treatment Of the Indians.

lFrom In Darkest Africa, in Cosmopolitan for
march,
whenever and as often as any of the cues
lions are considered in Congress-the negro
question in the South, the Chinese question
on the Pacific slope, and the Mormon cues
tion in Utah-the debates are almost always
characterized by violent partisanship in the
views OF Senators and Representatives,
whose sectional interests are at stake. and by
an opposition that is frequently based upon
absolute ignorance. But in the cases cited
above local pride or commercial prosperity
lends to the advocates who plead the caase a
hxlty OF purpose and a determination to
succeed that ultimately arouse apathy and
change Ignorance to enlightenment. In In
dian affairs alone this is not so. No one
pleads the Indians cause in Congress. No
one cares what his condition or grievance
may be. The Ionly men who do thoroughly
understand and fully appreciate the situation
are impelled by pressure they dare not re-
sist TO keep silent, when they should sreak
In tones that would be heard from ocean to
ocean. NO interest. patriotic or even hu-
name, seems to inspire the Representatives
OF the West at Washington to ask for Justice
Tor the red man. For 1t must be remem-
bered that such Representatives are elected
by the whites whose interests are in direct
opposition to those of their red brothers.
When for instance in 1877, these Sioux Indi-
ans were allotted reserve in the Yellow
stone valley under military control, they
mad In few years large herds of cattle and
norses, and were cultivating the soil and
rapidly becoming self-sustaining Four
the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers to the
Southern agencies. Although they implored
the authorities at Washington to leave them
Wnere tneir crops were developing in the
ned nelds and their cattle grazing on the hills.
boats, shipped down the river and
turned over to the Indian Department
at Standing Rock, where they were placed
upon land on which even their own rock
nonrlshed tlnsilia (wild turnip) could not
thrive, Why was this gross injustice perpe-
trated? In days of old David coveted his
neighbours vineyard, and being all-powerful.
got IT. The white man wanted the Yellow.
stone valley, and the Indian had to 90. Did
member OF Congress or Senator OF the
United States raise his voice In protest
against this act of spoiation? Nor is this an
isolated case. Treaty after treaty had been
mage only to be broken, and always by the
Wnlte man. In 1868 treaty with
t the entlIe sioux nation was made, by which
the great Sioux reservation Of Dakota was
set apart FOR the absolute and undisturbed
use and occupation of the Indians upon
which no outsiders but government en-
ployees shall be allowed to settle or reside"
Iney were given by this treaty a large
including the Big Horn. region, which was
set apart ssas Ia hunting ground. The dis
coyery of gold, however in the Black Hills In
1874, caused mad rush of thousands into
and through the Indian domain, in utter de-
fance of treaty obligations, law and common
courtesy. 1t Is hardly surprising, therefore,
that the Sioux became restless, under this
condition OF affairs; or that actual war fol
loved In 1879 and 1876, under the leadership
Custer a s PM TeS SOnage. la f Sas
steadily scaled down the appropriation for
theSi0ux since 1884 the appropriation for
that year being $1.S25. 900, and for 1890, $780,
ton reached the Indians without unreason-
able delay, much actual suffering would have
been avoided. On March 2, 1889
Congress passed an act under which it was
proposed TO divide the Sioux reservations in
to small reservations by which the various
branches of the tribe should be not only sep
arated from one another but completely tiso-
lated. This act led to treaty, signed by the
majority OF the Sioux, under the conditions
their land over 100000 acres.) In the
making:of this treaty the majority were in
duced to affix their signatures despite the
opposition OF large minority, because the
commissioners promised to advise and urge
the government to fgrant an increase of ra-
tions to correspond with that of the preced-
ing year and an appropriation to pay for GER
tain prairies and other property taken from
them In 1876, All of INSTRUMENTATION
and promises of the commissioners were en-
dorsed by the Secretary of the Interior and
the President. The latter, in his message to
Congress, inirelation to the ratification Of
this treaty said
THE commissioners had no power to bind
Congress or the Executive by their con.
struction of statute; but they were the
agents OF the United States, first, to submit
a definite proposition for the acceptance of
the Indians, and that falling, to agree upon
modified terms to be submitted to Congress
for ratification. Good faith demands that If
the United States expects the land coded,
the beneficial construction of the act given
by our agents should be also admitted and
observed"
However, in spite of the obvious justice of
the cause, and the strong recommendation
on the part of the President, Congress has
so far (Jan. 10, 1917 failed to pass the bill,
and it is to this almost criminal delay, that
much of the recent Indian trouble is attri-
buted.