Year: 1878

ment. He certainly was not to blame for failing to
cooperate with the Board. He had been indicted
and was on trial.


Mr. Smith was very anxious to do everything in
his power to promote the investigation. but he was
not allowed to assist. All the proceedings of the
Board were carefully concealed from him. If he had
been suspected of being dishonest there might
have been some excuse for this; but not only dur
ing the progress of the inquiry but since its COM
pletiOn has Secretary Schurz repeatedly informed
Mr.. Smith and his friends that no testimony reflect
ing upon his character as man officer would
be received without giving him ample opportunity
to meet it. How could he cooperate with the Board
when he not even allowed to know what
branch of his Office it was investigating!


The report of the Board that has been published
contains, on almost every page! reflections upon MIR.
Smiths administration of his office, and these
unquestionably based upon testimony docu-
mentary evidence which ho has never been allowed
to sec or answer. He is accused of treating grave
subjects with indifference; of putting incompe-
tent persons in responsible postions of allowing
general generalization Of the force of the Bureau
throughout; of making concessions to contractors
or agents which involved loss to the Gov
ernment; of sending instructions to agent in
the Indian Territory who attempting to
do his duty in accepting only proper cattle, not to
reject the cattle offered by contractor y OF ap-
proving improper regulations for the central super
ntendency. and of many other acts which no'honcst
or efficient officer would be guilty Of To alhese ac
cusations Mr.. Smith never had an opportunity to
reply. The Board did ask him to appear and when
he replied, asking if any evidence had been sub
mitted rejecting on his character an officer
or on the purity and efficiency" Of his Adminisra-
tion desiring to know-as he had right to-whcther
he was to appear a witness OF rs defendant, he
got no specific reply and never appeared. His
question eminently proper one. If he was to
be examined in regard to acts Of which lie had been
accused by previous witnesses he had right to
know what the evidence against HIM was before he
was called upon to answer it. If he was to be only
a witness and was not to answer accusations, then
he ought to have known that But now Mr..
Smith discovers when the investigation is closed,
the verdict found and the report published, that
there must have been a great deal OF evidence re-
fecting on his character as an officer, and on the
purity and efficiency of his office. Not oIny has
such evidence been submitted, but conclusions have
been drawn from il which are very damaging to the
reputation both of Mr. Smith and of many of his
subordnates, and all this has been done IN secret
and without any opportunity having been afforded
to the Commissioner, or the clerks who have lately
been discharged by virtue of this testimony to meet
OF explain any of it.


~
he accused in the report of the Board and tins ~
not the question now that woald he no excuse for
the method winch has been adopted TO secure his
convection. Any court that would condemn man on
the report of grand jnrN and ON the eXparte
evidence OF his accusers, without informing hm ~
advance OF the nature of the accusations against
him. or allowing nim to confront the witnesses and
crosS-eXaminc them, would not be tolerated III TIE
United states.


OTHER ERRORS OF THE INVESTIGATION.


The greatest outrage of all was the publication Of
the report of the Board.


Ii is no unusual thing for the head Of a Depart
ment to order secret inquiries for his informa-
ton and to secure assistance from every available
source without reference to the rules of evidence
the practice of courts and if this had been the Use 10
whcht the report the Board of Inquiry had been put
the ground Of complaint would have been far less se
rious But in THIS case conclusions based entirely on
one-sded evidence which has never been met with re-
buting testimony submitted to cross examination
have been published from the Atlantic to the iiic
and from the Gulf to the great lakes. II the Sccrc-
tary of the Interior convinced from what lie
learned through this inquiry that the good of the
Indian Service required reorganization of the Ba-
reau, that might have been accomplished without
this wide publicity but if he had desired to assign
public reasons for official changes, he should have
been careful not to have accused men OF dishonesty
OF incapacity without giving them hearing.


Finally a portion OF the Board of Inquiry was
strongly prcudiced i'll advance against the manage
ment Of the Indian Bureau, and especially against
the administration of Commissioner Smith and
Chief Clerk GalpIn. and had not hesitated TO de-
nounce both before the Board was appointed All
three of the gentlemen are honorable men
and efficient officers and the prejudice
ferrcd to may explain in some degree the
character of their report. Just here is where
Secretary Schuz was probably imposed
upon. 1t is no refecto upon man when Judge
orders him to stand aside ana does not permit him
to serve on jury 10 try case in regard 10 the
merits of which he has made mp hIs mind bc fore
hand. so without calling question the honesty or
the desire of the Board TO treat every one connected
with the Indian Bureau justly, il easy 10 under
stand how 1t was impossible with the prcconccved
ideas of portion Of It's members for fair report to
have been made. H.. l. W.