The local superintendents and agents, of course, might have been in part influenced by desire to benefit the section in which they were working, and, perhaps, by the design to get expenditures more completely into their own hands; and the Government, on the other hand, may have had good reasons for purchasing in New York. But the unanimity and earnestness of the local officials indicate here a real and grave source of trouble.
We come now to the important question as to how far the local officials themselves were honest and capable. The answer to this question is difficult.
Specific charges of peculation and wrong management are frequent. On a visit to the Nez Perces reservation in 1861 Superintendent Kendall found the only evidence of farming operations by the agency to consist of about three tons of oats in the straw, although the agent had a full force of treaty employes, and ten laborers besides, at an expense of seven thousand dollars.[38] As the Superintendent fed his horse, he sighed to think that each mouthful of the animal's feed cost the Government at least one dollar. On the Umatilla agency there was an expenditure called for during the first two years of sixty-six thousand dollars; as a result there were in sight in 1862 "two log houses, a half dozen log huts, an open shed for wagons and plows, about a hundred acres of loamy river bottom fenced and in cultivation, a set of carpenter's and blacksmith's tools, and farming implements insufficient for an ordinary half section farm."[39] At the same reservation the outgoing agent remarked to the special agent appointed to take his position that the place of agent was worth there $4,000 per year, although the salary was but $1,500.[40] We could wish, however, in such cases to hear the accused agent's side of the story. Yet in 1858, Mr. Dennison, Indian agent for eastern Oregon, according to his own report, spent $13,500, which "was mostly expended in opening farms upon the Warm Springs reservation"; the next year there were in cultivation on this reservation 356 acres.[41] More convincing proof of fraudulent practices, perhaps, is afforded in the attitude of merchants and others towards agents. When Mr. Davenport, agent at the Umatilla reservation, tried to get competitive bids at Portland, dealers were distrustful and sarcastic, because they thought that he, as was common, was ostensibly seeking bids while in reality having a deal on with some selected firm. "The practice of combining against the Government for mutual profit is so common," comments Mr. Davenport, "that all agents are regarded in the same unenviable light. I said to one of the older merchants: 'It is easy to say that all the agents pilfer in this way, but what do you know about it?' His answer was: 'I say all because all that I know about are guilty.' The agent at Warm Springs, at the Grande Ronde, at the Umatilla, at the Siletz does so, and I presume that the rest of them do the same."[42] Another method whereby an agent might line his own pockets was by allowing substitutions of inferior goods in government invoices; Mr. Davenport was offered $1000 for the privilege of exchanging annuity goods for others, item by item.[43]
But, indeed, how could it be expected that these administrators would be efficient and honorable when we consider the system under which they were appointed and did their work? No civil service rules were applied. Men were generally appointed, not because of special fitness either through natural aptitude or through administrative training, but because of political partisanship and at the demand of some Senator or Representative; or, later, they were appointed because of religious affiliations at the suggestion of some religious body. No national tests were applied, nor was there a sustaining esprit d' corps. There could be no right spirit, indeed, when many government officials considered that the agency system was merely a cheap way of keeping the Indians quiet, and when the western population in general was profoundly skeptical as to the possibility of civilizing the Indian.[44]
The outlook was the more discouraging since the great American panacea—education—seemed a dismal failure when applied to these Indians according to forms then in vogue. There might be quite a furore when a reservation school was opened and the novelty was unworn; but the white child's spelling book or reader soon proved very tame to the young Indian, the more so because of the difficulties of pronunciation. But the principal cause of failure of the day schools was the nomadic habits of the parents; hardly had the Indian child started to school, when away would go the family to the fishing or hunting grounds or to the camass fields. Teachers who were in earnest met this difficulty by establishing boarding schools, where the children could be kept removed from the parental impulsiveness. The next step was natural. These schools emphasized practical training, particularly agriculture for the boys and housekeeping for the girls. This step, taken at a time when in American educational methods, comparatively little attention had been paid seriously to this phase of education, was significant and produced good results.[45] Whatever the shortcomings of the American method of dealing with the Indians in contrast to that of British Columbia, in respect to education, at least, the American system appears to advantage; for the colonial government of British Columbia did practically nothing for the education of the natives.
There were two terrible evils, prevalent both in British Columbia and in the territories, which weakened and degraded the Indians and hindered efforts of every sort for improvement. These were prostitution and the use of liquor.
No more pitiable condition can be imagined than that of the helpless Indian women and girls who were devoted by their husbands and fathers to prostitution among vile whites. The northern Indians brought down to the Songish reserve at Victoria their young women, many of them girls from ten to fourteen years of age, and remained all summer as pimps and procurers.[46] Reports of American Indian agents along the Coast make frequent mention of this practice. In the interior there is less evidence of its existence, but wherever Indians had a chance to linger around towns, they became demoralized. Employes agencies prostituted Indian women or took them for concubines; the Superintendent of Washington Territory issued a circular warning all employes from such acts.[47] The results of prostitution are found in reports of physicians of the various agencies, who almost always speak of venereal diseases as common. It should very clearly be understood that these facts were not true of all tribes in like degree; the tribes in the interior were more robust physically and morally and farther removed from contamination. Nor should the chastity of all the individuals of a tribe be judged by specimens which hung about the towns. In the interior, particularly, it was probably true that "unchastity among Indians is the exception, as it is among the whites."[48]
Everywhere, both north and south of the Boundary, Indian welfare was assailed by the liquor traffic, and everywhere the Government engaged in a less or more futile struggle to combat it. Many of the Indians undoubtedly believed, like an Indian orator at Ft. Simcoe, that they had a right to drink whiskey if they wanted to, especially so long as the white man made it,—and there were always white men ready to sell it.[49] Local government took little part in suppressing the trade in the United States, the work being regarded as belonging to the officials of the general Government. These were hindered by lack of summary powers, by the scarcity of jails, and by the reluctance of juries to convict. Only on the reservations were the powers of the agents ample, and even here they might, in part, be nullified by the planting of resorts on the edges. The whole power of Government in British Columbia, on the other hand, could be utilized for the punishment of offenders. Magistrates had summary powers, and conviction entailed heavy fines and, in the case of regular dealers, loss of license. But the magistrates had the care of immense districts, and the Indians were not localized as they were in the United States after the reservation system was completely established. Yet this form of lawlessness, in common with other forms, was better checked on the whole in British Columbia than in the territories.
As we turn, now, to consider the efforts to solve the Indian problem in British Columbia, quotations from two American administrators will help to set before us the better ordered conditions under British rule. The first is from General Harney: "Like all Indians they [the northern Indians] are fond of whisky, and can be seen at all hours of the day in the streets of Victoria drinking whenever they can get it, yet they are not permitted to become disorderly. These Indians are more obedient under British rule, which appears to be kind, but firm, than their fellow men with us under any of the systems adopted by our government."[50] The other is from an Indian agent, Mr. Davenport, to whom we have before referred. "We have only to look across the line into the British possessions of North America," he says, "to see that their treatment of the Indian has been more promotive of peace and good will than ours, and some people are swift to conclude that the Canadians are of a higher moral tone than the people of the United States. The true reason lies in the fact that their system has a more constant and restraining influence upon the lawless class in society. There is more individual freedom with us, and consequently more room for departure from the normal line of conduct. This difference is boldly in evidence to those of our citizens who have lived in mining regions governed by Canadian officers, whose official tenure does not depend upon the mood of the populace."[51]
The policy of the Colonial Government of British Columbia with respect to the Indian population was distinguished by the following principal features: (1) Title to the soil was not recognized as belonging to the Indians; (2) No compensation, therefore, was allowed to Indians either in the shape of payments, annuities, or of special educational grants; (3) Indians were held to be fellow subjects with white men, and entitled, as individuals, to the protection of law, and responsible for obedience to law; (4) Sequestration of the native population upon large reservations was not followed, but, as settlement progressed, small reserves were assigned to families and septs, in proximity to settlements of the whites.[52]