The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-04


 per annum.
 long memorandum (twenty-three pages Of typewriting). which was also submitted. discussed the question substantially as follows:
 "1t explained the history of educa- tionai work by the Government among the Indians before 1878. under an act of March 3, isls. appropriating sl0.00o to be a permanent annual fund without reappropriation for the employment of 1 teachers among the Indians. "It explained the beginning of the | contract system under President Grant which had not existed under the act of 1Sls. and began after the act of 1870. appropriating s10o.o0o for the support of Indian schools among Indian tribes. not otherwise provided for, 1. e, among tribes not having traaties con taining stipuiations providing funds for educational purposes" The memorandum continues: ~
 It showed the beginning of the general annual appropriations for In- dian schools in 1878. for the support of industrial schools and other educa- tional purposes for the Indian tribes; that this appropriation gradually in- creasing In amount has practically continued until the present time; 1t set forth the language of the current appropriations of public money for In- dian day and industrial schools and the declaration of Congress following | adds a proviso to that language viz: That it is the settled policy of the 3ov- ernment to hereafter make no appro- prtatton whatever for education in any | sectarfan school and a subsequent declaratory provision in the approprfa- tion act for 1899, viz: This being the final appropriation for sectarian 1 schools.
 Tt then took up the question of the effect of the declaration of Congress as to which Senator Vest said In de- bate: "''rhis drastic declaration in this bill declaring that Congress of the United States win not make any appropriation to a sectarian school of any denomination, does not meet my concurrence.p
 It argued from the second deciara- tion above quoted and other things that the word Appropriation meant Con- gresslonal appropriation and that what Congress declared was that Congress itself would not thereafter make ap- proprtattons to support sectarian schools. and not that the Secretary of the Interior was forbidden to appro- priate funds for that purpose under pre-existing laws. It quoted the re- ports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. MT. Morgan, in 1891 and 1892, to show that the evel complained of the opponents of Government aid to sec- tarian schools with that contrary to the letter and spirit of the constitu- ton of the United States and utterly ] repugnant to our American institu- tfons and our American history to take from the public moneys funds for the | support of the sectarian institutions and that no moneys from the public treasury should be devoted to secta- rian or church institutions
 | Tt confirmed this idea that 1t was the use of the public moneys for tho United States or of the American peo- pie that was objected to by quoting the language of the Indian appropria- tion act of 1894 and a report Of secre- tary Hoke Smith of Dec. IS. 1894. in which he said: I agree fully with those who oppose the use of public money for the support of sectarian schools It quoted the debates In 1 Congress to show that the intention of Congress was to reduce the regular appropriation of public funds so as to get rid of contract schools aided by that appropriation of money belonging tV l1Ac <AtHIAAC1h RSOpiNs AL NASA showed that in the case of the osage schools and mission schools on the Sac and Fox reservations in Oklahoma, In- dian trust funds continued to be used and the contract system applied to them, after the declaration of Con- gress.
 '"The argument of the memorandum brieffy was that notwithstanding the declaration of Congressional intent not to make appropriations in the future of public moneys of the American people for sectarian institutions, the previous law giving the Secretary of the Interior discretion to use certain moneys of the Indians held in trust in any way that he might see at, including assistance to sectarian schools, were not repealed, and consequently his discretion re- mained.
 .'This was the legal advice given to you as your authority to continue the use of interest on certain Indian trust funds. It appears in the discussion that some of the Indian tribes desired such use of their own moneys and va- rious reasons were given to show the advantage of continuing to support certain existing sectarian schools on account of their efficient work or spe- cial beneficial influence, but with these considerations the Department of Jus tice was not especially concerned.
 Respectfully,
 wv. H. Moody,
 Attorney General"
 NrLn .L.,,r. haA haa,. voadA khat tha