story that had been sent to our paper by its Washington correspondent a little while before about Quanah Parker, one of the old Comanche chiefs.

Parker had been extremely valuable in bringing the Comanches into friendly relations with the whites. He found himself getting on in years, but without any property, and his white neighbors thought it would be a good idea to collect money to build him a house. They did this, and when the house was ready they told him, and he went to see it. "There is no furniture here," he said. They asked, "What do you want?" He replied that he wanted this and that, and added, "I want a big desk, a great big desk." "What do you want that for?" "Well," he said, "I want to go in there and sit back in my chair and put my feet up on that desk and some one will come in and knock at the door and say, 'Is this Mr. Parker?' 'Yes.' 'I want to speak to you.' And I will say, 'O, go 'way, I'm busy today.''

Well that story struck me as a great deal more promising than this whole book that I spoke of. It is really no use going over things that are past in our Indian history. What seems to me is required, is a general knowledge of specific facts concerning the status of the Indians to-day.

People generally should know how the Indians are getting on and what they are doing. We, who come to this Conference know it, but the average person does not. Men and women still turn to Mrs. Jackson's old story and say, "That must be the truth to-day, 'Ramona' is an authority."

The average person I have in mind is the newspaper editorthere are about twenty-five thousand periodicals in the United States, and twenty-five hundred daily newspapers, practically all edited by men of ordinary intelligence, without expert knowledge of the Indian question. If anything in connection with the Indians requires comment where do they turn? They go to the library and the first thing they think about is Mrs. Jackson's story. "Have you anything later than that?" they ask the librarian. "Yes, we have this other story." And they depend upon this material for the basis of their comment. The comment is, of course, out of date, it lacks foundation in specific facts.

If you want to become press agents, would it not be a good idea to acquaint yourself with a lot of facts? You can get many of them out of the Mohonk Conference Reports, and spread them around. The average editor is an overworked individual, without any extraordinary knowledge of Indian history, and with a very broad point of view. He would be glad to get hold of a new set of facts as a new basis for comment, which would show that the white people are not all villains in their treatment of the Indians. He is in sympathy with the whites, you know, because the average editor is a white man and believes thorough

ly in his race. The facts are there; there is no trouble about that. The Indian question is nearer settlement than ever before, the development of the tribes is satisfactory, and the head of the department is satisfactory as everybody agrees in saying. But your editor, of course, cannot state this in general terms; he would like to be specific. He would like to tell about Quanah Parker, or Pleasant Porter, or W. C. Rogers, or half a dozen men down in the Indian Territory, who have made fine records as tribal chiefs. He would like to tell how they are going into politics, and being mentioned for senators, and all that sort of thing. If he gets these specific facts he will use them.

I have no plan to suggest as to how you shall proceed as press agents, but I think you have the spirit. I think you are perfectly willing to tell your neighbors and everybody with whom you come in contact that there are promising things to be said about the Indian, and, along with a lot still left to complain of, there is a lot to praise. Do not spare praise, do not spare blame. Be as convincing and specific as possible. Tell about an interview with somebody who comes from the field; find out what is doing at Rosebud, in Arizona, in California, remember the facts and give them to your editor. He will be very glad to use them.

The Conference then adjourned until 8 P. M.

Second Session.

Wednesday Evening, October 17, 1906.

THE CHAIRMAN: To-night is essentially Indian night. We will call first upon Dr. Merrill E. Gates, Secretary of the Board of Indian Commissioners.

DR. MERRILL E. GATES said that, when asked by the Committee, he had declined to make an address to-night. Recognizing the courtesy of the chairman in calling upon him notwithstanding this refusal, he stated briefly the steps in the successful efforts (which were inaugurated by a Committee of this Conference two years ago) to secure, in the Legislation for Statehood for Indian Territory, prohibitions as strict as could be devised to protect Indians against the evils of whiskey for the next twenty years in the new state. The prompt, active and efficient aid given by President Roosevelt to the Committee in their efforts he emphasized. Dr. Gates declined to occupy more than five minutes of time; and calling the attention of the members of the Conference to the last Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners (which will be sent to any one who is interested and will write to the Board, Room 320, Corcoran Building, Washington, D. C.) he asked particular attention to the table opposite page 16 of that report (for 1905). This tabulates the results of correspondence with all the Indian agents, giving the number of Indians at each agency and sub-agency-the number to whom allotments have been made, the number of allotted Indians who have died since allotment at each agency, the number of allottees living on and cultivating their allotments, etc.; the progress made in completing the registers of all the Indians, (with marriages, births, and relationships,) ordered made at each agency five years ago; the opinion of agents as to the number of Indians under their care who are now fit to care for their own money were it put into their hands, etc. There are thirty-four agencies where such a register is not yet completed. There seems no good reason (save in case of the Navajos) why such a register should not be completed before the 1st of January, 1908, at every agency. Its importance cannot be over-estimated, now that (by the Lacey bill) we have entered upon the policy of dividing tribal funds into individual holdings to be paid to individuals as fast as Indians are fitted to use the money wisely.

Dr. Gates expressed his gratification at the progress which is being made under a Commissioner whom he regarded as "in familiarity with the facts and the needs of the Indians, and

in his purposes, probably the best equipped Commissioner we have ever had, not forgetting noble and useful men who have preceded him in that office." He added: "But the dangers lie, as they have lain for years, in perpetuating the Indian system, and the Indian Bureau, even under the best of Indian Commissioners. A dozen years ago I made a speech here, advocating what I called a vanishing policy in Indian affairs.' I am more than ever firmly convinced that this is the one true policy. Every step we take ought to be a step toward dispensing as quickly as possible with the beneficent offices of even the best of Commissioners. No men are good enough to help effectively our Indians if they do too many things for them! Our Indians need to learn to act for themselves as citizens. As long as their tribal trust funds are undivided, these funds will be a constant temptation to claim lawyers to 'loot'; and Indians will be belittled and kept immature by having their funds 'held for them and 'managed for them.' It is impossible to make them citizens except by making them live as citizens, take up the burdens and tasks of citizenship, in discharging the duties of citizens.

THE CHAIRMAN: We shall next have the pleasure of hearing from Mr. S. M. Brosius, Washington Agent of the Indian Rights Association.

MR. S. M. BROSIUS: Mr. Chairman: I was pleased that the subject came up for consideration this morning of placing responsibility upon the Indian. In the very few minutes that I will occupy, I want to call attention to some phases of the Indian policy where I think the effect is to deny the Indian responsibility, or to shield him from it.

In the matter of control by the Interior Department of funds. derived from the sale of inherited Indian lands, some criticism may be made. Congress, a few years ago (May 27, 1902) passed a law providing that Indians, under certain conditions, should have the privilege of disposing of inherited Indian allotments of land. There seemed to be no condition in that statute prohibiting the Indian from having the use and control of the proceeds when the land was sold, and the Interior Department evidently took that view of the law for some time.

The Secretary of the Interior now holds that moneys derived from the sale of these inherited lands are charged with the original trust, so that no matter into what form of property the fund is changed, the original trust which followed the allotment of the lands sold, exists, and such property whether in moneys. or other form of values, is subject to the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior.

This strict interpretation was promulgated, possibly, over two years after the enactment of the law authorizing the sale of this class of lands, and not until after thousands of contracts had

been entered into by the heirs, these funds being relied upon to meet such obligations. These contracts naturally took various forms, and were very often most unfair to the Indian, the latter being worsted in his dealings with shrewd manipulators.

But where there was a semblance of fair treatment, and more especially where merchandise was furnished the debtor Indian, he should not be too readily shielded from paying his obligations contracted before the change of policy of the Secretary was made public, wherein he assumes charge of all such moneys. There are no doubt very many cases in which the Indian debtor desired to pay off obligations contracted under the conditions mentioned, and has been denied this privilege by the authorities. The policy strictly enforced, does not, in our opinion, lead to honest dealings on the part of the Indian wards. Nor does it tend to increase individual responsibility, a condition so necessary to proper development.

The course adopted by the Interior Department in controlling these funds, has been approved in an opinion handed down by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case coming to that tribunal from the State of Nebraska.

In carrying out the present policy of controlling these inherited land funds the Indians are subjected to the whims of the government official immediately in charge, the agent, superintendent, or farmer, as the case may be. The latter, especially, are often not the proper type of manhood, being selected not from the standpoint of most good for the Indian, but because of political influence, and the Indian often suffers by reason of these conditions. The Government must rely upon its representatives in charge, so that in this, as in other matters, the right does not always prevail. The wards themselves, often men familiar with dealing with their fellows, are often subjected to humiliating restrictions, such as the payment to them of monthly installments of such funds of ten dollars per month. Even this is humiliating to less qualified persons, and has the further objection so often made to payment of annuities, that it deters from daily labor, the effect being to rely upon the monthly payment. Then, too, it increases the opportunity for fraudulent manipulation of the funds through the farmers or other officials in charge by refusing to allow, or recommending in other instances the purchase of farm implements, or other articles, as they may or may not carry with them a source of profit to such employe.

The good intention of the Government is not assailed. The policy as a whole, it is believed, should be to turn over these funds as rapidly as possible to the heir, only exercising a fair supervision to secure a due degree of justice, but not hampered by detail that lessens the ward's responsibilities.

In the legislation by Congress incorporated in the "Burke Act," approved May 8, 1906, to which the Honorable Commissioner