The Irish standard., 1916-05-20

mfttee should reject such an impor-
tant amendment as this. It rests on
a fundamental proposition, Mr.. Presi.
dent. The Indians residing in this
country have asked me at various
times to present this proposition to
the Senate and to the Congress. They
want public schools the same as the
white children. They want to have
the benefit of the public schools.
Mr.. President, hope that this in
vestigation will be made, and that a
report will be made to Congress be-
fore the next Indian appropriation bill
is presented and this will be the last
time that we shall appropriate money
for mission schools on any Indian
reservation in the United States. This
appropriation is in direct contraven.
ton of law and contrary to the spirit
Of our Constitution.
There is no appropriation contained
in the present Indian Bill,for sectariau
or mission schools, and there has
been no such appropriation since 1900.
The appropriation to which Senator
Gronna refers is simply an appropria.
ton to the Sioux Indians in pursuance
of treaty stipulations. The 100000
in question is appropriated pursuant
to what is known as "The Black Hills
Treaty." ratified February %, 1877,
which provides that
"ln consideration of the foregoing
cession of territory and rights, and
upon full compliance with each and
every obligation assumed by the said
Indians, the United States does agree
to provide all necessary aid to assist
the said Indians in the work of civil.
cation; to furnish to them schools and
instruction in mechanical and agri-
cultural arts, as provided for by the
treaty of 1865"
Article Z Of the treaty of 1868 (XV
State, page $3.50 provides that "in
order to insure the civilization of the
Indians entering into this treaty, the
necessity of education is admitted
the provision of this article to
continue for NOT LESS THAN
TWENTY YEARS" This treaty is
still in force and has no time limit.
Senator Gronna, referring to an en-.
tirely different treaty, says, 1T expired
10 years before that time (1S89) and
was extended for period of 10 years."
This is absolutely misstatement.
The treaty he refers to is the treaty
of 1868. which in 1889 was extended
for 20 years-not for 10 years, as Sen.
ator Gronna states.
Whatever may be said Of the treaty
Of 1868, no one can successfully deny
that the Black Hills Treaty, ratified
in 1877, is living treaty and still in
force. This is amply demonstrated
by the fact that Congress has so de-
cided. Senator Gronna knows this,
or he should know it. He should also
know that the '68 treaty extended 20
years instead of 10. He certainly
knows that there has been no appro.
priation by Congress to mission
schools since 1900. He knows, more
over, that the 100000 in question in
the present Indian Bill is NOT an
appropriation to Mission Schools, but
that it is an appropriation in pursu.
ance Of treaty stipulations in payment
to the Sioux for the valuable Black
Hills country which they coded to the
government. Yet in view of all this
he made the above quoted statement
in the Senate Chamber, May S, 1916.
Senator Gronna knows that when an
Indian received money that is paid to
him by the government or by any one
else in liquidation of contract, that
he, just as any white man, may use
that money as he sees fit. Does the
Senator advocate the breaking of con-
tracts or treaties because. of the pos
sfble uses to which the moneys de-
rived therefrom may be put? The
Senator either knows the facts or he
does not know them. If he does know
them (and they have been duly pre-
sented not only to the Senate Indian
committee of which he is a member
but to the public at large) he owes It
to himself and to his constituency to
inform himself.