Harper's Weekly/The Ponca Question

by Harper's Weekly

THE PONCA QUESTION.

In another column will be found a letter from “H. H.” traversing some statements recently made by Secretary Schurz in regard to the Poncas. In alluding to the letter of the Secretary, we said that the removal of the Poncas took place before Mr. Schurz entered upon his official duties. This was inexact. The statement of the Secretary is as follows:

“From the recital of facts, taken from the official records in title department, it appears that all the legislation which brought about the removal of the Poncas and the initiatory steps taken to this end occurred before the present administration came into power; that the Indian Office had first recommended their removal to the Omaha Reservation, upon which no action was taken, while Congress did provide for their removal to the Indian Territory. The removal itself, in pursuance of the law quoted, was affected a very short time after I took charge of my present position, when, I will frankly admit, I was still compelled to give my whole attention to the formidable task of acquainting myself with the vast and complicated machinery of the Interior Department.”

The letter of “H. H.” disregards entirely the acknowledgment of the Secretary that he afterward ascertained the consent of the Poncas to be only alleged. Upon this point he says:

“The details of the case did not come clearly to my knowledge until the Ponca chiefs arrived in Washington (in the fall of 1877), and told their story. I concluded that they had suffered great hardship in losing the reservation originally conferred upon them by treaty, after a so-called consent which appeared not to have been a free expression of their will. They had also endured many disasters on their way to the Indian Territory; and after their arrival there were greatly afflicted by disease, and lost a large number of their people by death. Then the question of redress presented itself. They requested permission to return to Dakota. This request was denied, not without very careful consideration. The Sioux had in the mean time been removed to the Missouri River, and occupied that part of their reservation which included the Ponca lands.”

As to the probability of trouble with the Sioux, the Secretary says:

“To return the Poncas to these lands under such circumstances seemed a dangerous experiment, not only on their account, but also because the temper of the Sioux at that period appeared still very critical, and it was believed that the slightest irritation might lead to another outbreak of that tribe, the most powerful of all the Indian nations. Indeed, military officers predicted that another and a larger Sioux war was threatening, and that any untoward occurrence might bring it about. In the consultation had upon that subject the late Mr. William Walsh, of Philadelphia, one of the sincerest, warmest, and also most experienced friends the Indians ever had, took an active part, and, with his concurrence, the conclusion was arrived at that, under these difficult circumstances, the return of the Poncas to Dakota would be too dangerous a venture, and that it would be best to propose to the Poncas a selection of lands in the Indian Territory, which they might choose themselves. This they consented to do. Had we then proposed to Congress the return of the Poncas, and obtained authority and money for that purpose, and a new Indian war had ensued, which was not only possible, but, from the information we received from that quarter, appeared probable, the folly of such a step would have been more seriously and more generally condemned than all the wrongs done to the Poncas are now.”

That Secretary Schurz could have had any malignant desire to persecute the Poncas is absurd, but that a great wrong had been committed, in part of which he had unconsciously participated, he does not deny. In his letter to Governor Long, he quotes from his annual reports, and from those of the Commissioner on Indian Affairs, and adds:

“You will admit that the language employed in those reports with regard to the wrong done to the Poncas could not have been stronger; there was nothing concealed or passed over. Three years ago, therefore, the matter was fully ‘unearthed,’ and reparation demanded, and it was done by this department. But Congress took no notice of it. If the reparation to the Poncas proposed in the bill submitted to Congress was not satisfactory, then there was a full opportunity for Congress to amend that bill, and to act upon its own judgment. If the Poncas had any real friends in Congress, those friends had, ever since 1877, sufficient knowledge furnished them by me upon which to speak and to act. But session after session passed, this department again and again called attention to the matter, and Congress said nothing and did nothing except to appropriate money for the support of the Poncas. Had Congress directed this department to do this or that, there would have been no hesitation in executing the law.”

In reply to the accusation that he did nothing to undo the mischief, the Secretary says:

“It is said that had I recommended to Congress an appropriation for their return to Dakota, it would have been granted. But an appropriation was recommended by this department for the purpose of indemnifying them in another way, and Congress, with a full knowledge of the facts spread by me before them, might have amended that bill had it been so minded. Yet the matter received no notice at all. The reason why I recommended that the Poncas be indemnified upon the lands they then occupied, and why I thought it wise that it should at least be tried whether they could not be made comfortable and contented there, are stated above.”

Governor Long and Secretary Lincoln, of the Boston committee, assert in their rejoinder to Secretary Schurz that his letter is plausible, but not fair or candid, and that its misapprehensions of law and fact are almost painful. The discussion has at least this good aspect: it shows that there is at last an intelligent public opinion upon the Indian question. But it is none the less curious that it should show itself in a controversy with a Secretary who is wholly free from the suspicions which have sometimes hung around the Interior Department, and who can not be accused of deliberate foul play toward the Indiana. President Hayes has wisely requested Generals Crook and Miles — two military officers who are singularly fitted by sympathy and intelligence — and two civilians, to visit the Poncas and ascertain their wishes, and to report what course ought, in their judgment, to be pursued. Meanwhile both the Poncas and the Sioux are speaking for themselves in Washington, and their words and the replies of the government are closely watched. This is as it should be. It is the satisfactory guarantee that every just step will be taken to right the wrong, and that among the other good services of this Administration will be that of furnishing a wise and humane precedent in the treatment of the Indian question.

• Page Image at Wikimedia Commons