THE SCIENTIFIC TRIUMPH OF THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF THE WORLD.

THE PRELUDE.-SECRETARY SCHURZ AND THE INDIAN QUESTION.

It is one of the delicious secrets of Boston society that when, on the banks of the Charles, the poet Longfellow first met the Indian maiden Bright Eyes, he lassoed one of her hands in both of his, looked down into her face, and after an appreciable interval, said: "This is Minnehaha." At Washington, when President Hayes met Bright Eyes, he drew her from a talkative company into a corner of a great reception-room, and after an hour's conversation, came back and presented her to her friends with the remark that the President of the United States and Miss Bright Eyes are agreed on the Indian question.

It is at last safe to say that the churches are aroused to the fact that the worst set of savages on our frontier is the pickpocket tribe, and that they are all whites. It would not be safe to affirm that politics are aroused to the full significance of this fact, and yet the whole aspect of the Indian question, thank God! has changed in politics within a year.

On the banks of the Missouri, last May, it was my fortune to meet the brave Omaha editor who had just brought the case of Standing Bear before Judge Dundy. Mr. Tibbles insisted on introducing me to an Indian girl, of whom he said nothing more than that she was the daughter of Iron Eye, a chief of the Omaha tribe. I was rushing, at the moment, to catch the Overland train, and felt that interruption was in some sense an impertinence; but I had not seen Bright Eyes more than fifteen minutes before I had advised her guardian to bring her to the Atlantic Coast, introduce her to Mr. Phillips and to Boston, and to appeal from the courts to the people, from the tomahawk to the platform, press, and parlour, and thus endeavour to arouse, by agitation, a public sentiment which might effect something at Washington. Mr. Tibbles followed that course, and probably nothing of late has more thoroughly united this city than sympathy for the Indian cause.

It is the glory of Boston that from the hour of her birth she has thought more of ideas and great principles than of anything material in our civilization. She has never been dazzled by the candlestick; but has always reserved her reverence for the candle. It is the glory of Boston, for instance, when the great principle of total abstinence is assailed in quarters otherwise respectable, that she is moved far more than New York would be, or perhaps any other city in the United States; and she is not to be called a village on that account, but rather a queenly city of the soul, as she is, loyal to principle, aud feeling a stain like a wound. Just so ou the point of justice to the Indian; this city was more open to appeal than any other in the United States. Certain it is that the parlour and the pulpit, the press, and the platform, were united here, and one can hardly say which of the four

great instrumentalities did the most to push to the front the discussion of the Indian question from the point of view of the Indian himself.

The Secretary of the Interior, at Washington, had the audacity to write to this city and request that a committee should be appointed to come to the Potomac, and to put a telescope to its eyes, and a microscope at the end of the telescope, and endeavour to ascertain if there is in existence now, under a reformed administration, anything like an Indian ring. A committee, with an ex-governor of Massachusetts at its head, and with one of the brave philanthropic merchants of Boston as its secretary and treasurer, the latter not by any means the office of a sinecure, was appointed, and the secretary went to Washington. Shortly after, the chief of the pickpocket tribe was found in the Indian Bureau as commissioner. He has been deposed. An Indian ring was discovered, as the result of the agitation upon this subject; but it was welded so closely about the neck of the Secretary of the Interior that it was invisible under his beard. With German honesty, Carl Schurz tore off the ring. Perhaps it was the great German heart in him, attaching him to his own appointee, that blinded him somewhat to the misdeeds of the Indian Commissioner whom he deposed, and did not allow to resign. Although the Secretary of the Interior tore an Indian ring from his neck, and now breathes and thinks more freely, I must tell him that a ring found underneath the beard of any public official, and unseen by the official himself, is not a Gyges ring; it does not make the wearer invisible.

What do I want more than Secretary Schurz is willing to grant now on the Indian question? Two things. First, a decision by the Supreme Court of the case of Standing Bear, and of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in its application to Indians. Second, a provision of law, that after Indians have been assigned lands in severality, they shall have power to protect themselves in the possession of it, and in all the rights which the Fourteenth Amendment, in letter and in spirit, guarantees.

Legal cases, instituted to secure justice to Indian tribes, have been turned out of the United States Courts. To this fact Secretary Schurz points, and so discourages the effort of Boston and Omaha to carry a new case up to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, something has happened since General Scott drove the Cherokees out of Georgia. The Fourteenth Amendment has been passed. Judge Dundy has given a decision that an Indian is a person, and that the habeas corpus act can be applied to protect his life, liberty, and property. In California the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to shield the Chinese from sand-lot ruffians, Although neither Indians nor Mongolians are citizens, it has been decided that they are persons, and as such, entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that no person, whether citizen or not, shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. These events change the case of the Indians before the Supreme Court. It is no proof at all that a suit will not now succeed, to point us, as Secretary Schurz does, to the fact that the Supreme Court, before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, rejected the claim of the Cherokees.

The Secretary of the Interior has written certain letters to a noble lady, Mrs. Jackson, whose eloquent articles in defence of the Indian cause have already become a part of standard literature on the subject, and he affirms that he does not see how a suit in defence of the rights of Standing Bear and those whom he represents, can be brought before the Supreme Court. I have letters here from one of the very highest judicial authorities in the land, whom I am not permitted to name, and he says there are a dozen ways in which such a suit can be brought

before the highest tribunal of the land. If I could give you my authority for the legal assertions I am about to make, you would respect it much more highly than that of the Secretary of the Interior himself. The letter I hold in my band is from a specialist who has given to this case years of attention.

It may be true that the Indians, as a tribe, cannot sue in the Federal Court to recover a reservation, because there may be nobody on it or in possession of any part of it to be sued. Of course, the Government cannot be sued, because the law does not permit this. The Government may exclude all persons from the land in question. But simply because the Government cannot be sued, as stated, it does not by any means follow that a suit may not be instituted to test the validity of the whole matter involved in the controversy. Suppose the Poncas should go upon their old reservation ostensibly for the purpose of remaining there. The Government official would then arrest and remove them as trespassers on an Indian reservation. The law authorizes the use of military forces for this purpose, and trespassers are frequently removed. It is the duty of the arresting officer to convey the alleged offender to the nearest United States Court for trial. The offender must be turned over to the civil authorities for that purpose. When that is done, a habeas corpus could issue against the arresting officer, or the whole question could be raised on proceedings to be instituted by the District Attorney, representing the Government, when acting against the trespasser.

The right of an Indian to appear in court is settled until Judge Dundy's decision is reversed. At Washington much comment was made on what was called the new departure of Judge Dundy, in regard to the laws concerning Indians; but after mature and careful deliberation, many and very many have settled down to the conclusion that the decision was right. It is understood that the Honourable Secretary of the Interior is of this opinion, and that the Attorney General agrees with him.

It is claimed by some friends of the Indian that the Fourteenth Amendment makes him a citizen. The language of the amendment is that all persons born within the United States, or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Now, it is true that the territories have been decided to be portions of the United States, and that most of the Indians are born in the territories. It is not true, however, that the Indians are "born subject," in the full sense, "to the jurisdiction of the United States." They are not completely subject to that jurisdiction while they maintain their independent, or semi-independent tribal relations. It is granted that we make laws for the Indians in several particulars, but the government recognizes their tribal relations, and so their semi-independence. It is this peculiar state of the Indian as a ward that has puzzled our statesmen. While the tribal relations are kept up and the government recognizes it, we cannot claim that the Indian is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, for he is not born directly subject to the laws of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, makes such a broad distinction between citizen and person that a man may safely take Judge Dundy's position, and assert that although no man can prove that the Indian is now a citizen, it is the easiest thing in the world to prove that he is a person, and as such, under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Revised Statutes that have been passed in accordance with it, is entitled to the protection of life, liberty, and property by the forms of law administered in the Supreme Court. I affirm, first, that the Indian has a right to come into the Federal courts when he is wronged, under the laws of the United States; and, secondly, that in all other cases he may come into the State Courts for that purpose.

Secretary Schurz does not advise the carrying of Standing Bear's case up to the Supreme Court. The public does. Judge Dundy does. Lawyers who have given the most attention to the case, do. The philanthropists who have raised funds for the protection of the Indians in their rights are all eager to have this matter decided before the Supreme Court. My first demand is that you should agree with the Boston idea, and not with the Secretary of the Interior, and continue to push your claim for justice for Standing Bear and all whom he represents, before the highest tribunal of the land.

When the appeal was made to the courts in behalf of Standing Bear, the Indian Bureau said that no case could be brought; but a case was brought and won. It is the same Bureau which now says the case cannot be carried up to the Supreme Court.

The next thing I want, which Secretary Schurz does not appear willing to grant, is the substance of the following amendment to the bill now before Congress. The general details of the bill presented to the House Indian Committee have been approved by your Boston Committee, and also by the Secretary of the Interior. Bright Eyes and Standing Bear, who sat on this platform a few weeks ago, have been cross-examined by Congress. The Ponca delegation and Mr. Tibbles are agreed with Carl Schurz in support of the bill before Congress, except that Bright Eyes and Standing Bear, and White Eagle and Iron Eye, and Mr. Tibbles, still demand one further guarantee.

The object of the rejected amendment is to give the Indian opportunity to protect his title to land.

Any Indian settled upon an allotment according to the provisions of this act, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be a party, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as enjoyed by white citizens; and no Indian so settled upon an allotment, shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and no State or Territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

You say that the bill now before Congress secures enough without this amendment. Listen to Bright Eyes on that question :

Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Hotel, February 28, 1880.

REV. JOSEPH COOK:

DEAR SIR-There are two bills before Congress, one to move the Poncas back to their land and pay them fifty thousand dollars, and the other to give each Indian of every tribe an allotment of land and give him a patent to it. Neither of them have, however, been reported from the Committees. There is no telling when they will be passed. Our object is to make Congress give to every Indian a title to his land, and give him the protection of the law, so that his land cannot be taken from him by an executive order, or any of his property without process of law.

This maiden has a strange facility in coining epigrammatic sentences. She opens an article in a recent New York paper with this most incisive remark: "The solution of the Indian question is citizenship." But she does not deal in generalities, and here is another sentence which goes to the heart of the case: A title to land is of no use to a man unless he can protect it in the courts. The Committee of Investigation has only brought into stronger light the wrongs and outrages committed on the helpless, defenceless Poncas. The cross-examination of the government official who was responsible for the deed was masterly, and he was made to show, from his own testimony, the pitiless cruelty exercised in their removal. Such cases as this have happened, and will happen again and

again, as long as the Indian has not the protection of the law, but is subject to the will of one man.

Let me contrast the civilization which Longfellow represents with the barbarism of the border. As he lassoed Bright Eyes' hand, border ruffians on horseback sometimes lasso Indian girls by their necks with ropes, draw their prey to the saddle bow, and ride off into the forest.

"When an executive order," continues Bright Eyes, "can rob a man of all he has, and outrage every right of manhood," and womanhood, she might have said, "and there is no redress, and no Indian can make an appeal for help except to the executive who gives the order, I wonder that any one can hesitate to give him the protection of the law, and extend the jurisdiction of the courts over him." One of Bright Eyes' epigrams is that law is liberty.

"The objection made is that an Indian is incapable of taking care of himself, and therefore ought not to be a citizen. If true, it is a curious fact that might be looked into by ethnologists and scientists, that the Indian is the only human being on the face of the earth who is incapable of being a citizen because he cannot take care of himself. Perhaps he is an isolated species of mankind. The tables of the Government reports, however, show that the moral condition of the Indians compares favourably with that of the neighbouring illiterate whites. Fifteen tribes compare favourably, twelve are as good, thirteen superior, three infe rior. The balance of the account is in favour of the Indians.

"The fatal mistake of the Government," so Bright Eyes concludes, "has been in taking care of the Indian and feeding him like a child, instead of making him take care of himself, like a man. The more you help a man, the more you degrade him; the more you make a man help himself, the more you elevate him. Experience is the best of teachers, and I might say, the best of civilizers. The Indian has been denied the lesson of experience. When the Government accepts the teaching of history that self-help is the only agency that elevates men, and gives to the Indian rights accorded to every other race, the Indian problem will be solved. "BRIGHT EYES."

It is no part of the purpose of the friends of the Indians to fence off a little fresh water in the middle of the Atlantic. We would break up the reservation and tribal system; we would give the Indians full title to land; we would absorb them gradually into the body of self-supporting and self-protecting citizens. The final demands of your Boston Committee are those of the best statesmanship: 1. That the solemn treaties and pledges of the Government to the Indians be in all cases honestly and promptly fulfilled.

2. That the Indian be recognized not only as a person, but as a fellow-citizen, entitled to the protection of the law, and as so made amenable to it, and that he enjoy all the privileges accorded to all other persons and citizens.

3. That the present reservations now granted to the Indians, whether by treaty, executive order, or otherwise, be ccded to them by absolute title, inalienable for twenty-five years, except upon a vote of three-fourths of the male adults of the tribe, subject to the consent of the Government.

4. That individual Indians should have the same privileges in selecting allotments that other persons enjoy, and that titles should be granted to them upon the same conditions, with this exception only, that these lands shall be in alienable for twenty-five years.

It is our confident belief that these measures alone will solve the so-called Indian problem; and that it will be easily solved if we deal with it in a spirit of justice, humanity and truth.

THOMAS TALBOT,

F. O. PRINCE,

RUFUS ELLIS,

JOHN W. CANDLER,

WILLIAM H. LINCOLN.

Committee.