The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-03-29
PEOPLES FORUM
MIR. BYRNE'S REPLY
Bismarck, North Dakota.
Mn~nk 90 1AO7

Bismarck, North Dakota.
March %, 1927.
Editor Tribune:
The complaint Of Mr.. Client is not
in good faith. My letter published
in the Tribune is the same in all es.
sentials as that sent him last Novem.
Der. In order to clarity certain state
mcnts a few changes in phraseology
were made in my own copy at that
time; and. when the Tribune asked
to publish the correspondence, this
copy was sent overriding the only
one available. Not in the slightest
degree was single thought or argu-
ment changed or modified save in
the interest of clearer understand
ing Of points involved.
Mr.. Client likes to pose as sort
of apologist for Colonel Chivington,
in behalf of whom he wants us to
read "a temperate and honest state
ment made by Irving Howbert. .
participant in the battle" Appar.
emily Mr.. Howbert has waited 80
years to tell his story; and, having
been participant in the battle, his
views may be prejudiced-Ar. Client
to the contrary.
On the other hand, the, investiga-
-
of congress four months after the
partisan prejudice, would have OBJ
vious advantages in the way Of get
ting at the actual facts.
In submitting its report to Con-
gress, the committee had this to
say: "As to Colonel Chivington,
your committee can hardly find fit
ting terms to describe his conduct.
Wearing the uniform of the. United
States, which should be the emblem
of justice and humanity, holding the
important position Of commander of
q military district, and, therefore,
having the honor Of the government
to that extent in his keeping. he de-
iberately planned and executed a
foul and dastardly massacre which
would have disgraced the veriest
savage among those who were the
victims Of his cruelty"
"lnhuman monster" was the term
used by one witness in describing
Chivington; and, in my opinion, the
evidence brought out fully justified
that description.
In trying to discredit General Hug
gins, Mr.. Client reflects no great
credit on himself. General HugRins
is retired officer of the United
States army whose record justifies
the belief that he is we'll qualified
to deal with the subject discussed by
him in the American Mercury of No
vember, 1926. He saw much service
on the frontier, was awarded the Con-
gressional Medal Of Honor "for most
distinguished gallantry" against the
Oglalla Sioux-MontanaA April 1880,
and received the surrender of RAIN
in.the Face and 800 other Sioux In
dams OctoJer, 1880. He was retir.
cd February @, 1908, with the ranl
Of Brigadier General.
Tho fact that he presumed to say
a word for the Indian soldier was
bound to bring scathing comment
from Mr.. Client. Mr.. Client pounces
upon two trivial errors in the article
Of General Higgins: One, that Gus.
ter's father was Michigan farmer
when In fact he was ap Ohio farm
Or, and the other involving the COM
parative ages Of Custer and Rain-in-
the-Face.
We may be sure no other dis
crepancics were found by Mr.. Client
otherwise he would have made the
most Of his discovery. Yet on the
strength Of these two insignificant
slips, he proceeds to condemn the
article as = whole as zone Of the
worst blends Of inaccurate assertion
and misleading innuendo" that he
has ever scent
The least that may be said about
the controversial Mr.. Client Is either
he II very uncertain as to veracity
or grossly careless ~ to language.
P. E. IBRYNE.
Editors Nets The shove "