New-York tribune., 1910-06-06
THE DAyINWASHIMTON

quired If the proyisions of the bill were
final or IL Congress weld again have an
opportunity to exercise discretion IN the
matter. mo action WILDE taken setting
titles until the whole natter Is referred
back to Congress and Congress confirms
the report of the Secetary OF the IN
terror" replied Senatorial Toilette. Mr.
Scott then withdrew is objection ana
the bill passed. OF thesreater portion OF
the bill Mr.. La Folletfs statement was
true. Of the joker, the asst clause, 1t was
untrue. The action of ongress IN taking
the matter out of the ourts and assign
ing three appraisers te decide the case
would be final But, the, Mr.. La Foilette
probably forgot the provions of the joker.
Then, again. he may hive thought Mr..
Scott unduly suspicious nd not deserving
of a more detailed explnation-and then
he may have thought hov disappointed his
political lieutenant, Saubrn, would have
been. But, as has been sid, it is not the
purpose OF this dispatch % attribute mo-
tives
IN THE HOUSE-As has been said,
Senator Clapp, of MinneSta. is chairman
of the Senate Committee Indian Affairs.
Representative Miller, of Minnesota, is
member of the House Committee on Indian
Affairs Mr.. Miller used . be partner OF
Senator CIapps son, and Senator La Fol-
lette and Senator Clapp re warm friends
now. They made trip recently through
Minnesota--or was II Wisconsin, to
gether But be that as it may, it was
Representative Miller, of Minnesota. who
reported the La Toilette I'LL to the House,
%of Aoe,
members of the House Committee on In
dian Affairs, for some on suggested that
before reporting the bill tvorably the In
dians should be consu1td Accordingly
Mr. Sanborn vas telegrahed TO. He re-
piled: "On behalf of the Indians, l ap-
prove last clause Senate ill $685." The
record does not show whe suggested that
the best method of consulting the Indians
was to telegraph Sanborn who had been
in Washington promoting the passage of
the bill. That remains dark secret of
the Indian Committee Tie Indians say
Sanborn had no authorit. to send that
telegram. The records of he pending suit
do not show that Sanbornhas entered an
appearance as counsel for ne Indians. and
up to that time United sates Attorney
George H. Gordon, counsel for the Indians
by appointment Of the government, had
never heard of Sanborn in sonnection with
the case. This does not mean that San
born may not have secured some contracts
from individual Indians appointing him
their attorney and guaranteeing the con-
tingent fee already referrs1 to. In any
event the committee acceped the assur-
ance of Sanborn and the biIlwas favorably
reported. Then it was that the Indian
Rights Association interverrd, the Indian
Commissioner withdrew his Endorsement,
and as result the bill is dead-for the
present at least.
COMMISSIONER VALENTINES PART.
On behalf of the committees of the TIVE
houses It must be noted that the Connuis
sioner of indian Affairs Mr.. Valentine, had
indorsed the La Toilette bill. On behalf IF
Mr. Valentine It must be said that II was
his predecessor, Mr.. I0eupp, who succeedeu
in killing similar legislation in the 57th
Congress and caused the Institution of the
judicial proceedings which were to deter
mine the rights of the Indians. It was Mr..
Leupp, too, by the way, who, after this
same Sanborn bill had secured from the
Bad River Indians a contract authorizing
him TO represent them as attorney, refused
to approve the contract, thus rendering IL
void Due allowance must be made for the
fact that Commissioner Valentine was con-
fronted with this situation when he was
new in office, and that may be a mitigating
circumstance, but 1T is a fact, of course,
that Indian Commissioner should be= over
on the aiert-and especially sometimes.
RUNG DOWN.-As has been said, Com
missioner Valentines timely action in adj
vising the House committee that he with
drew his approval of the La Toilette bill
operated to ring down the curtain on this
little comedy for the present. The legal
suit will. of course, proceed after the regu-
lar and tedious order OF such proceedings.
and there may be no revival of the COM
edy that failed. But again there may be,
and it behooves the Indian Commissioner
and the Indian Rights Association, and any
other friends poor Lo may have TO keep
an eye open for the revival of an affair
which at one time promised to have such a
pleasant ending. g. G. H.