Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-12-18

| StdHu out very THucn alive! VII thS
other hand, DR.. Sherman continues, Al
win Partridge was much loved friend
of his, a member of the same church,
and a man in whose word this surviy-
| ing witness had every confidence; then
| DR.. Sherman relates the most mysterl-
Gus incident in this chapter of myster-
| les
| After the disappearance of Cappie,
Alvin Partridge had built, as before
| stated, a new farm house. In this home
| he was living at the time of the reputed
| Cappie's return; the preemption shan
| ty, Cappie's home, was still standing,
but then used as work shop
! Before Cappie was lost they had
bought cook stove, which was set UP
in front of the fireplace; when the boy
! was brought back the stove had been
taken away from there and put into the
kitchen of new house. Now comes the
| statement made by Alvin Partridge to
| DR.. Sherman.
| 1T was a rainy day." said he, "and
| during the interval between the taking
of the testimony and the day of Com
missioner Butrick's decision, / was
| working in the shop, the old preemp-
| ton shanty, ana Cappie was with me.
After looking around the boy said: Pa,
the stove used to stand here pointing
with the words to the spot where the
stove did formerly stand. Again, in a
few minutes, going to the side of the
room which was in Cappie's babyhood
curtained off for the bed. the boy said:
My bed was here; 1t used to go under
your bed"
Now, say" concludes DR.. Sher-
man, "if the boy said this without
prompting, no power on earth can
make me believe that he was not Cas-
per Partridge who was lost in the
spring of 1S49."
And so say all of us. If this was true
1t must convince any one. Was 1t true |?
Or was it said, as Dr. Sherman puts 1t,
without prompting? Could an almost
frantic desire to find in the doubtful
| child his missing boy have unbalanced
the father mentally. or bent him to un-
due effort to elicit these words?
If he did not believe, above every
thing man ordinarily holds precious,
such as home and mpanionship of
relatives and friends. that the boy was
his child, why should he cast all these
aside, forfeit his home and fly with
him from a decision which would not
only part father and child, but make
his boy an Indian rover for life?
What of it ALL tho, from the In
dams standpoint? 1t must be remem-
bered that even where a deadly enmity
did not exist between the settlers and
the red men there was ever continual
distrust and suspicion. The testimony
of the Indian was universally regarded
as untrustWorthy, and from the point
of view of the red man doubt if the
testimony of the white man stood much
higher. We have learned in later years
that there are two sides to the Indian
question, one of which belongs to the
Indian.
Consider that in the first instance
this Indian woman went voluntarily
from her people at the request of the
white men to place her child before its
reputed white mother; that the white
mother distinctly repudiated the child;
and that the Indian woman was left to
return with her opposes to her people.
Again, after the white men had fruit
lessly pursued her band for tbs,
they voluntarily offered to surrender
her to the white mans sheriff ana to
allow the white mans court to decide
the identity of the child.
Is it not rather remarkable instance
of a Willingness, on her part, to abide
by the white mans law (Which heav-
en- knows the red man has little enough
reason to respect.
Then the testimony at the trial. The
positive statement of the missionary
priest that he had known the child for
years and had seen it probably for long
intervals every day; note the corrobo-
rative testimony of the housekeeper,
and the testimony of the Indian trader
that the child was his own. Put against
all this the Identification of the boy as
Cappie by Mrs. Bouton, thru the scar
on his ankle. Could all that be no more
than one of life's strange condolences?
Solomon had such case before him
once and solved it happily. In that in
stance one of the mothers knew the
child was her own: the other knew it
was not her own. In this case only the
Indian woman knew whose child was in
dispute. If it was really the squaw's
child Solomon's proposal must have
failed because neither mother would
willingly haye seen the child dismem-
bered.
BE 1t as 1t may, the white mans court
gave the child to the Indian woman.
Then, the white claimant stole 1t away
not once, but twice. Was justice or in
justice done in this? Look at it as you
will, the story of Cappie ends in mys-
.ery If the boy was really Cappie there
is one tragedy in the story. If he was
not, the story suggests two, because
Cappie's distracted parents not only
failed to recover their own child but
robbed an Indian woman of hers to re-
place It,
On the other hand, If Alvin Partridge
told the truth to John ]. Sherman, the
boy must have been Cappie. And the
story ends with the question which has
never been solved, and never can be.