A Hearing Before the Secretary of the Interior
By S. B. H.
An important gathering of clergymen, lawyers, and publicists took place in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Walter L. Fisher, on Monday morning, April 8, the occasion being a hearing granted on the subject of an order issued by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Valentine, prohibiting the wearing of a religious garb in the government Indian schools. This order was suspended by President Taft, with the recommendation that a public hearing be given to all parties interested in the question. Among those present at the hearing, which began at eleven, and closed at half past five, were: Hon. Robert G. Valentine, Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Rev. Chas. L. Thompson, president of the Home Mission Council; Rev. Wallace Radcliffe, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church; Dr. Laws; Wm. H. Ketcham, superintendent of the Bureau of Catholic Missions; Attorney Edgar H. Gans, of Baltimore; Rev. S. H. Woodrow; Rev. E. B. Sanford; H. B. F. Macfarland, attorney of the Home Mission Council; Prof. W. W. Prescott, who represented the Religious Liberty Association; Hyland C. Kirk, president, and John D. Bradley, secretary, of the Washington Secular League; A. T. Jones; Attorney Scoville, representing the Indian Rights Association, and the writer. The particular order (601), which was the cause of the hearing, by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Valentine, is as follows:— “In accordance with that essential principle in our national life—the separation of church and state—as applied by me to the Indian Service, which as to ceremonies and exercises is now being enforced under the existing religious regulations, I find it necessary to issue this order supplementary to those regulations, to cover the use, at those exercises and at other times, of insignia and garb as used by various denominations. At exercises of any particular denomination there is, of course, no restriction in this respect; but at the general assembly exercises and in the public-school rooms, or on the grounds when on duty, insignia or garb has no justification. “In government schools all insignia of any denomination must be removed from all public rooms, and members of any denomination wearing distinctive garb should leave such garb off while engaged at lay duties as government employees. If any case exists where such an employee can not conscientiously do this, he will be given a reasonable time, not to extend, however, beyond the opening of the next school year after the date of this order, to make arrangements for employment elsewhere than in federal Indian schools.” In opening the question, the Secretary of the Interior expressed the hope that definite and full consideration be given the subject-matter, in order that he might arrive at a just and proper conclusion. He requested the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to state his position and the circumstances which led to the order above referred to. Mr. Valentine read his speech, which was a very carefully prepared document dealing with the fundamental principles connected with the foundation of our government, and consumed about an hour in reading and answering questions from the Secretary and Attorney Gans. Mr. Valentine's argument, in our judgment, was a masterpiece, and his position unanswerable. The commissioner gave evidence of having studied the principles of civil government and religion quite thoroughly, and his earnestness reflected a marked spirit of patriotism. His paper will be presented in full in the columns of the magazine Liberty. Mr. Valentine reported that when the Indian schools were opened, thirty-eight years ago, twenty teachers were members of the Catholic sisterhood and wore the garb of their order. That number has increased to fifty-one, but according to the admission of Father Ketcham, none of them had taken the civil service examination. Following Mr. Valentine's address, the Secretary suggested that it would be proper to hear from the Catholic Indian Bureau representatives. Attorney Gans suggested that inasmuch as his clients were on the defensive, it would be well to hear from all who had anything to say against the Indian schools as conducted by the government in which the Catholic teachers figured. This was accepted, and Reverend Thompson, of the Home Mission Council, gave a short talk, which was designed to be introductory to the work of the council's attorney, former District Commissioner Macfarland. Mr. Macfarland held that the order of the Commissioner of Jan. 10, 1895, providing for the “covering” into the classified service without examination of officers and teachers of private Indian schools taken over by the government and the practise under that order had no warrant in law. In 1892 the Indian Service was brought into our classified service by rules transmitted to the civil service commission by the Department of State, Rule 1 of which reads:— “The classified Indian Service shall include all the physicians, school superintendents, assistant superintendents, school-teachers, and matrons in that service, classified under the provision of Section 6 of the act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, approved Jan. 16, 1883.” Mr. Macfarland contended that the order of Mr. Valentine was fully warranted. Prof. Hyland C. Kirk, of the Secular League, followed with a short address, designed to show the inconsistency of the government's teaching religion. Dr. Laws appealed very earnestly to the Secretary in his protest against continuing Catholic-garbed nuns in government schools. He had several copies of the Protestant Magazine, and told the Secretary that he had documents to show that the Catholic Church is doing an unconstitutional work in their connection with the government. Prof. W. W. Prescott submitted a brief, which thoroughly covered the point at issue, and which is given in full in another column of this paper. In addition, Professor Prescott in his statement referred to encyclicals of the popes, particularly Leo XIII and Pius IX, in which the true position of the Roman Catholic Church with reference to the union of church and state, is fully given. The contention which Protestants make against the union of church and state is deprecated in these encyclicals. The Reverend Ketcham, superintendent of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, made a short statement introductory to the argument which was to follow by Attorney Gans in support of the present conditions. Both of these representatives contended that they were not violating the principles of the separation of church and state in the present Indian school arrangement. Mr. Ketcham referred to the fact that it came with ill grace from Protestants to charge that Catholics were teaching religion at public expense, when it should be remembered that several years ago the Protestant ministers of Washington invited the Roman Catholics to confer with them with the view of adopting an arrangement whereby religion could be taught in the public schools of the District of Columbia. Of course, the majority of the Protestant preachers present could say nothing in response to this point, but Professor Prescott took advantage of the occasion to show that Seventh-day Adventists protested against the proposed arrangement for teaching religion in the public schools. Reverend Woodrow said: “I fail to see how it is that relatively more numbers of the Catholic sisterhood are employed as teachers in the government Indian schools to-day than there were twenty years ago, if the civil service rules have been applied to the appointment of the teachers, as the law provides.” “At this point, Secretary Fisher said: ‘I am not very clear on this subject, and it will be one of the questions I shall ask Commissioner Valentine, of the Indian Affairs, to explain. The civil service rules have been governing the appointment of teachers to the Indian schools for twenty years, and any appointments made other than through the regular channels will have to be accounted for. I shall ask Mr. Valentine to account for the appointment of every nun teacher in the Indian Service.’” In carefully studying the question, there seems to be no doubt but that the religious garb worn by a teacher is tantamount to sectarian teaching. It was stated, in a New York Supreme Court decision on this point:— “We are thus brought to the question whether in this State a regulation is to be deemed unreasonable which prohibits teachers in common schools from wearing a distinctively religious garb while engaged in the work of teaching. In my opinion it can not be justly so regarded.
. . . There can be little doubt that the effect of the costume worn by these Sisters of St. Joseph at all times in the presence of their pupils would be to inspire respect, if not sympathy, for the religious denomination to which they so manifestly belong. To this extent the influence was sectarian, even if it did not amount to the teaching of denominational doctrine.”— 184 N. Y., 421.21 The Secretary of the Interior now has the entire matter under consideration, and he will be expected to rule as to whether the order of Commissioner Valentine is warranted; and if so, it will be necessary for the Secretary to make some ruling with reference to religious garb in the Indian School Service.