The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-09
Has There Been Malyersation OF the
Indian Trust Funds?

The question whether most OF the
mission schools, which in 1908 and 1904
nro6ted by allotments from moneys
held in trust for certain Indian tribes by
the Secretary of the Interior, belonged
To the Roman Catholic Church is unim-
portant compared with the question
whether. under the circumstances, any
sectarian school, Catholic or Protestant,
had right to an allotment. Evidently
the latter inquiry involves question OF
law and n question OF fact.
President ROOSEVELT, in the bitter
published on Sunday, Feb. S, maintains
that the allotments complained 81 were
both legally and morally iustlfiable.
AS regards the legal validity Of the acts,
he relies on the opinion Of Attorney
General MOODY set forth in letter
dated Feb. >, in which the assertion
was made that the refusal of Congress
TO make any further appropriation for
sectarian schools among the Indians
did not bind tine Executive to refrain
from making allotments for such pur-
pose from the income of funds held in
trust by the Department OF the Interior
There is no doubt that in urgent matters,
where delay might be dangerous, the
President would be warranted IN acting
at once on the assurance or his legal
adviser, but experience has shown that
on other occasions he may do well to
wait until public discussion has proved
that the conclusions Of the Attorney
General will bear examination. In this
instance Mr. ROOSEVELT seems to have
waited scarcely twenty-four hours, but,
before the text OF Mr.. MooDY's letter
was published, to have resolved to shoul-
der the responsibility for a proceeding
which, If not questionable, had at least
been questioned.
Now, the matter was not disposed
Of from a legal point Of view when
the Attomey>Generl demonstrated that
the Department of tho Interior had a
technical right TO apply the income
of tribal trust funds without any refer
ence to the attitude of Congress toward
sectarian schools. Admitting this to
be true in the letter, II not In the spirit,
we must recognize that technical
right must be exercised in a statutory
way. 1t appears however, that in
the mode Of exercising its technical
right the Department Of the Interior
violated statute. Section 200 of the
regulations of the Indian Office, which
ia based on Section 2,O97 of the United
States Statutes, expressly provides that
treaty funds cannot be diverted from
the objects for which appropriated
without the consent of the tribes, ex-
pressed in general council, which con-
sent, stated in writing, must be APP
proved by the Secretary Of the Interior,
and the approval communicated 10 the
agent Iof the tribes affected before
the diversion can be made 1t is alleged
and the allegation is not contradicted
by the Interior Department-that in
the case of most, if not ALL of the nine
allotments made to mission schools, no
general council was ever held on the part
of the tribes whose funds were diverted.
Il would seem, therefore that even
from a technical viewpoint the allot-
ments OF tribal trust funds TO sectarian
schools were illegal If they were
illegal, it il idle to talk about their moral
Justification Assuming, however. for
the sake Of argument, that they were
legal can we admit that they were
made in way defensble in the forum
of morals? Mr. ROOSEVELT himself ac-
knowledges in his published letter that
although, as he assumes, legal au-
thority exists for allotting tribal money
TO a sectarian school on the petition Of
individual members Of a tribe, the money
allotted should represent only the pro
rata proportion of the tribal money "a
which the individual Indians making
the petition are entitled Did Mr.
ROOSEVELT take any pains before he
rushed INTO print, To ascertain whether
this obviously Indispensable condition
had been fulfilled? He seems to have
taken the fulflment for grapted for
an inquiry addressed TO Mr.. BRosIUs
agent Of the Indian Rights Association