The Monmouth inquirer. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1865-1933, 1926-05-27

Next to the matter of responsibility for the
disaster is the question of whether not there
any survivors of the Custer battle. The
center of the controversy this point for many
years was the Grow Indian scout Curey, whose
claim to the title OF survivor" depends entirely
upon an Interpretation of what that term means.
Curley was with Custer after the general had
separated his command and with him when
he first came into contact with the Indians. Just
when he left Custer-at the order of the COM
mander, by the way-is not known definitely but
it has been pretty we'll established that he was not
with him when Custer made his last stand on the
barren hillside over which the red wave of de-
struction swept to blot out FIVE companies of the
Seventh. The only genuine survivor" of that last
desperate struggle not human being, but
a horse COmanche the claybank sorrel charger
ridden by Capt. Myles Keogh of l Troop of the
Seventh. Comanche found after the battle
wounded in seven places but with tender care
his life was saved and he lived to an honored old
age.
Despite ndisputabIe evidence that there was
only real survivor, horse and one human
being who had a faint claim to being survivor
-Curey, the Crow--during the last half CEN
fury there have come to light innumerabIe "sur-
vivors" whose claims have been easily exploded
by competent authorities but who have succeeded
in deGeiving many persons not familiar with the
Custer battle. In the same manner innumerable
"Custer scouts" have gained wide publicity. They
bod up at Sucl regular intervals JnaL the head
line Last of Custer Scouts Dies" has become q
commonplace Evidently every packer, WAGNER or
other civilian employee of the army who ever had
any remote connection with Clusters regiment
some time before he dies gets the idea-or his
friends get it for him--that he was Cluster
scout" and either living dying he enjoys brief
moment of fame. If all of the men who have
claimed to be Survivors" or Custer scouts had
been with Custer on the Little Big Horn on June
90 1885, 1t is difficult to see how ten times the
number of Indians who there would have
been able to have wiped out Clusters command
One of the favorite pieces of fiction about the
Little Big Horn battle is that the Indians were
led by Sitting Bull and that Rainn-the-Face per-
sonally killed Custer. While it has never been
definitely established just how prominent part
Sitting Bull had In the battle (some authorities
say that he not even in the f1ght) it has been
fully proved that the leaders who principal
ly responsible for maneuvers Of the Indians on
that day were Chief Gall OF the Hunkpapa Sioux
Chief Crazy Horse Of the OglaIa Sioux and Chief
Two Moons of the Cheyennes. AS to Rain-in-the-
Faces claim to dstinction-it is true that there
was a feud between him and Capt Tom Custer
brother of the general and that he had threatened
to cut out Tom Clusters heart. 1t is also true that
Tom Clusters body was found after the battle
thus mutilated and although Rain-in-t e-Face is
accused of having done this, in the closing years
Of his life he denied it. His denial was made to
a man of his race. DR. Charles A. Eastman
and under all the circumstances 1t is reasonable
to believe that he told Doctor Eastman the truth
Within the last year there has been much dis
pute over the arms which Custer and his men
carried into the battle Many artists who have
drawn pictures Of the Custer battle have shown
the soldiers using swords, when matter OF
fact there was not saber In the entire command.
The men of the Seventh were armed only with
ancient single shot Springfield carbines and Colt
revovers and It was partly because OF these In
effective single shot carbines that Clusters COM
mand persisted
Another favorite piece OF misinformation lays