Page:A Century of Dishonor.pdf/374

350 acres in Colorado, we can properly consider what is the best method of extinguishing the Indian title thereto without injustice to the Indians, and without violating the plighted faith of the Government of the United States.”

The writer of this letter says:

“In withholding supplies from the White River Utes, the Secretary of the Interior is simply obeying the law. He cannot, except upon his own personal responsibility, issue supplies to a hostile Indian tribe.”

Secretary Schurz has published, in the Annual Report of the Department of the Interior for 1879, the following paragraph in regard to this case of the White River Utes:

“The atrocity of the crimes committed should not prevent those individuals who are innocent from being treated as such, according to Article 17 of the treaty, viz.: Provided, that if any chief of either of the confederated bands make war against the United States, or in any manner violate this treaty in any essential part, said chief shall forfeit his position as chief, and all rights to any of the benefits of this treaty; but, provided further, any Indian of either of these confederated bands who shall remain at peace, and abide by the terms of this treaty in all its essentials, shall be entitled to its benefits and provisions, notwithstanding his particular chief and band have forfeited their rights thereto.”

The writer of this letter says, in allusion to the murders and outrages committed by some of the White River Utes, that “H. H. is the champion of the fiends who wrought the ruin.” Have the readers of The Tribune so understood my protests against the injustice of punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty? H. H.&emsp;

This letter was followed by a card from Mr. Byers, reiterating some of his assertions; and by a second short letter, which closed the discussion.

To the Editor of the Tribune:

,—I ask only a little space for reference to the communication of “H. H.” in to-day’s Tribune. It is asked, “If the investigation of the Sand Creek affair was so unfair, why did not the people of Colorado correct the false impression by presenting their own version of the case?” The answer is that the case was prejudged, and we were denied a hearing in our defence.