Roman Catholic Indian Schools Denied the Use of Indian Treaty Funds.
By John D. Bradley
THE violation, especially on behalf of the Roman Catholic sect, of the spirit and letter of the repeated declaration of Congress enforcing the principle of separation of Church and State with respect to public money and sectarian Indian schools, has at last been brought face to face with the law in court and given a severe blow. A decision to the effect that while Indian "trust funds," or the interest thereon may, upon the request of the Indians for whom held in trust, be applied to the education of Indians in sectarian schools, "treaty funds," which are made up of moneys appropriated by Congress annually to carry out treaty stipulations of the government with the Indian tribes, CAN NOT BE LEGALLY PAID BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO SECTARIAN INDIAN SCHOOLS, was rendered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by Justice Gould on April 4. This important decision was rendered in a test case raised by the suit of Reuben Quick Bear and other Sioux Indians to restrain Indian Commissioner Leupp, Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock, and other government officials from paying $27,000 out of the treaty funds of that tribe on a contract "with the Catholic Indian missions for the education of Sioux Indians." The suit was begun under the auspices of the Indian Rights Association of Philadelphia, which organization has been keeping a close eye on the diversion of money from the public fund of the Indians to Roman Catholic schools. It contended that under the declaration made by Congress in the Indian appropriation act of 1896 and repeated in that of 1897 in the words, "It is hereby declared to be against the settled policy of the government hereafter to make appropriation for education in any sectarian school," the government or its officials could not make payments of any kind for education in sectarian schools. The association was represented at the hearing of the case by Charles C. Binney of Philadelphia; Edgar H. Gans, a Baltimore lawyer and a prominent Roman Catholic layman, appeared as counsel for the Roman Catholic Indian Bureau, which, of course, was opposed to the contention of the Indian Rights Association. The Federal officers were represented by District Attorney Baker, who also is a Roman Catholic, and Assistant District Attorney McNamara, from whose name it is pretty safe to infer that he also is a Roman Catholic. After pointing out that the treaty funds arise from obligations, including education, assumed by the United States toward the Indians in consideration of certain concessions and agreements, and that they are not fixed and definite sums but are in the form of appropriations by Congress from year to year for the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by treaty, Justice Gould decided for the plaintiffs and upheld the contention of the Indian Rights Association so far as treaty funds are concerned in this language: "Now, it seems to me that this sum, which is annually appropriated in accordance with the obligations of Article Seven of the treaty, is an appropriation by Congress within the meaning of the terms of the acts of 1896 and 1897, which declared that hereafter no appropriation whatever for education in any sectarian school shall be made. The obligation which was imposed upon the United States, or which the United States imposed upon itself, in entering into this treaty with the Indians, was not a legal obligation in the strict sense. It was susceptible of change at any time on the part of the United States—the United States might violate it entirely. It seems to me this money, which was annually appropriated in the execution of the treaty obligation, which is called the treaty fund, is an appropriation within the meaning of the inhibition of the acts of 1896 and 1897, and thus is not such a fund as can be applied by the executive officers to the payment of the obligations contracted for in this contract of July 1, 1905." But with respect to the moneys known as the trust funds, which are fixed amounts held in trust by the government for the Indians, and which in the case of the Sioux is $3,000,000, the justice held that the interest thereon could, at the request of the Indians, be paid for education in sectarian schools. He held that this is not prohibited by the Congressional declaration of 1896 and 1897 on the ground that such payment, requiring no act of Congress, is not payment by Congressional appropriation. This may conform to a strict construction of the declaration of Congress, but it is exceedingly doubtful if it conforms to its spirit and intent. It is said that the opinion of Justice Gould, in substance, "upholds a view taken by President Roosevelt in 1905, when the President decided that the government could legally use the trust funds for education in sectarian schools, but that there was considerable doubt as to the propriety of a similar use of the treaty funds, and ordered that payments on the contract be suspended until a decision be rendered by the court." This order by the President was doubtless caused by the protests of the Indian Rights Association against the diversion of public moneys to sectarian schools, which the President, at the solicitation of Roman Catholics, had himself permitted and authorized, and which he has continued to permit and authorize with respect to trust funds. But the declaration of Congress on this subject was a declaration of policy and principle not merely for itself but for the entire government, a declaration of "the settled policy OF THE GOVERNMENT," and so, notwithstanding the view of the President and of Justice Gould, it is certain that in so far as the government or any of its departments or officials control the trust funds of the Indians their diversion to sectarian schools is in violation of what Congress has enacted into law as the settled policy of the government in the matter. But as it is, it is said that this ruling of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia will affect "practically all the Catholic Indian mission schools, as well as many Protestant schools, operating among the Indian tribes of the West. Some of them will find their revenues seriously interfered with hereafter." We are told that while both are affected, Roman Catholics will be much more "seriously" affected than Protestants. Which serves to indicate the extent to which the declaration of Congress enforcing the principle of separation of Church and State with respect to public moneys and sectarian Indian schools has been disregarded and violated in one phase in which the violation is perfectly plain and unmistakable, and also as to what sect has been chiefly favored and has chiefly profited by this violation.