Luxemburger gazette. [volume] (Dubuque, Iowa) 1871-1918, 1902-04-08
&cipcft fir BEN Staatsuer6anS

Hcipcft fir ben Staatsper6anS
BON Californian! Su Der SnDianers
Shulfrage baben Der Yrdiioent uab
Der Sefretar ii6 brett an Die Con.
areBmanner uno Senatoren IN @aib.
ington getpenoet uno baten Die Ser
rem Soltspertreter ii6 81 bemiihen.
Dab ni6t unter Dem Sitel: .Non.
iectarian" Die fatboIii6en Su.
oIaner . Wiiiionen bena6tbei Fl.
nno protei It d e
beporSnet Diirben. giner Der
Serren, namlib Senator Barb, ant.
lportete, er boffe Dab Die Srage bon
&c ectarianism" ME mebr in 8e5ue
auf Die Snoianer.S hulen agitirt
tpiroe. 9araufbin antporteten sic
Serren bonn Staatsperbano oas
Solgenoe, oamit anbere &atboliten
lid Die @rgumente merfenL ipelbe
oarin entbalten itub:
Respected Sir:-Your favor of the
9TH instant in reply to our petition of
February 9th was duly received. in
answer we have to say that We know
very well that there is no legislation
pending against the Catholic schools
frequented by Indian Catholic chill
dren, mol did our remark that these
schools deserve the support of the
government, which goes without say.
ing among the knowing, contemplate
re-opening the dispute for the purpose
OF obtaining funds from the govern
ment for such schools, though even
If We did ask as much, we DEM your
assertion that it would be ito further
the interests of the Catholic schools
and missions" as such. 1t would be
for the benefit of the Indian children,
and solely in order that their faith
might be secure from ministerial and
~sectarian meddlers in the government
tai service. We did not ask as much,
though the wording seem to imply it.
We are, however, glad the wording
did occur, inasmuch as it gave us an
opportunity to know where you stand.
For this reason we wish to remind
you, since you mentioned the circun-
stance by these words in your letter:
Il fully endorse the policy adopted by
a former congress for providing the
Indians with d~ay-schools, to be con-
Quoted by the agents and teachers ap.
pointed by the government, and there
fore | hope that the old questions Of
s~ectarianism in the Indian schools
may never again be agitated."
OF that former congress you were
a member; for that unjust law you
gave your vote, though you learned
from Senator Vest in the senate cham.
Der the utter hypocrisy of those that
urged the passage of the bill on the
ground of "sectarianism." We had
hoped better from you. There was no
need to remind us of that hypocritical
proceeding.
We therefore do agitate the ques.
ton of 's~ectarianism in the Indian
Schools" because that is what
prompted US to address you at all.
The cry was "secatrianism" indeed.
but we knew very well that Catholic.
ism was meant; and the conduct OF
the Indian department has proved
this time and again. 1t is for this We
enter our protest with you, and ask
you to protest against the granting of
support, notably to the Carlisle III
dian school, and many others, notably
in New Mexico, also to the school at
Warmers Ranch, California, in order
to compel the sects that control these
schools to the exclusion of Catholic
teachers to support themselves, as
Catholics must support those in their
charge, without government assist
ance, or until Catholics can obtain po.
SltiOAS there DIS well as those OIL all
other faith; and until Catholic In
dian children are not compelled
against their conscience to attend the
harangues of Protestant preachers in
the Protestant chapels of said gov
eminent schools, but really "sectar.
ian" schools. II you are DESTROYS to
obtain information in the matter, you
may inquire of the Catholic Bureau
at Washington, of His Lordship, the
Bishop of Los Angeles, who, however,
knows nothing Of the steps we are
taking, which we take of our own ac-
cord as Catholic citizens and voters,
determined to see ourselves on an
equal footing with other citizens. YOU
can get information regarding War
ner's Ranch School, the Potrero In
dian School near Banning, the indian
Schools Of New Mexico at the re