The Word Carrier (Santee, Nebraska), 1888-02

              The Word carrier.
VOLUME    XVII.
HEIiPIXG    THE    RIGHT,   KXl'OSINt;    THE    WHOMI.
NI'MHKIt    1.
SANTEE AGENCY, NEBRASKA.
FEBRUARY, [888
FIFTY CENTS PEE YEAB.
OU'lt   I'LATFOKM.
WHAT    IS   TIIOl'CJHT   OK   IT.
For Indians we want American Education ! We want American Homes!
We want American Rights I The re-
sidt of which is American Citizenship!
And the Gospel is the Power of God for
their Salvation.
This month we present another
batch of Government Orders. It is
likely we shall have a new issue every month for some time. If anybody can tell what the new rules
mean, he can do something the Honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs will find difficult to do. If
you consider each rule to be modified by the ones that follow, you will
have one interpretation; or, if you
! The Opinions of the Religions Press on the
Commissioner's Revised Order.
The  leading religious papers  of
; the country are unsparing in their
criticism  of Commissioner Atkins'
revised   vernacular   orders.     For
| the benefit of our readers we bring
: some of the points they make here
together.    The rules referred to are
to be found in another column:
The  Interior opens the subject
; thus:
Under the compulsion of a public
! sentiment healthy enough to make
'i over-confident public officials sensitive   to   criticism,  when  they are
guilty of overstepping the bounds of
: official duty and propriety, Mr. Atkins has been compelled to issue a
reverse the  scheme and interpret
each rule by its predecessor, it will
give a meaning just the opposite of ! modification of his order respecting
the first.    "How not to say it," is i missionary schools on Indian reser- |
evidently the title of the rhetoric in | vations, many of which had been j
use in the Indian Bureau.
Only one concession is made—
that in regard to native teachers
teaching in the vernacular at remote points. The rest of the rules
are stricter than ever. And the assumption that the Commissioner has
authority to make such regulations,
closed under his former arbitrary
and unjust proclamation. That he
is "convinced against his will," and I
is "of the same opinion still," is evi- \
dent from the fact that, while some j
very small, unavoidable, and im- j
practicable concessions are made in ;
the amended orders, it wdl be seen
ever.        	
A Dakota book has about the same
effect upon the Indian Bureau as
a red rag has upon a mad bull. In
its zeal to banish the vernacular, it
prohibits the use of an English-Dakota Dictionary, the only use of
which is to teach the meaning of
English words. The same is true
of an inter-linear English-Dakota
Header that was prepared by request of a former commissioner,who
knew something about education.
REVISED    ORDER     NUMBER    ONE.
is maintained more offensively than I that, like most compromises of the
kind, they yield comparatively little
and retain nearly all that was offensive in the old instructions.
Of the first rule The Independent
has this to say:
The schools referred to are con-
■ tract schools, conducted bymission-
' ary societies, where the government
pays a certain sum per pupil for
instruction.   Over such schools, be-
; cause it helps support them, the
government has a . certain moral
right of supervision and control.
But it uses like a giant its giant
. strength. We do not know that the
missionary societies, which have
their head's in the lion's mouth, will
: care to utter any vigorous protest;
j but we need not hesitate to call such
I an order arbitrary and extreme.
Little Indian boys and girls, just
taken from their homes, not knowing a word of English, are here forbidden   to   receive   even   Sunday-
! school instruction in the language
they understand. Not even in morals and religion can they be taught
in the language they talk. Further than this, it is forbidden to
prepare normal scholars to go into
hamlets and teach native schools,
where only the native language is
spoken. We have no patience with
the fussy stringency of this regulation.
Upon the second rale the same
paper gives this explanation and remark :
"Missionary schools" are those
supported entirely by the missionary societies. The government does
not provide schools enough, and so'
the religious societies support some
with no help from the government.
It is to these that this regulation
applies. We reply to the Indian
Bureau and to Mr. Commissioner
Atkins, that it is an impudent impertinence for him or the bureau to
meddle one particle with the instruction given in these schools. So long
as these schools do not teach on the
government reservations immorality
or disloyalty, the government has no
business to meddle with what it does
not pay for and does not provide.
Commissioner Atkins'   Further   Orders  on
the Indian Vernacular Question.
The following is Bevised Order
No. 1, sent out from the Indian Bureau to all Indian Agents:
Department of the Interior, Office of
Indian Affairs, Washington, January 18,
isss.—Snt: Tiie following regulations
regarding the teaching of the English
language and the vernacular in Indian
schools are sent foryour information and
guidance :
1. No text-books in the vernacular will
be allowed in any school where children
are placed under contract, or where the
government contributes, in any manner
whatever, to the support of the sehool;
no oral instruction in the vernacular will
be allowed at such schools. The entire
curriculum must be in the English language.
■>'. The vernacular may be used in missionary schools only for oral instruction
in morals and religion, where it is deemed to be an auxiliary to the English language in conveying such instruction.
:;. No person, other than a native In
dian teacher, will be permitted to teach
in any Indian vernacular; and these
native'teachers will only be allowed in
schools not supported in whole or in part
by the government, at remote points,
where there are no government or contract schools where the English language
is taught. These schools, under native
teachers only, are allowed to teach in the
vernacular, with a view of reaching those,
' Indians who cannot have the advantages
of instruction in English ; and they must
give way to the English-teaching schools
iis soon as they are established where the
Indians have access to them.
You will see that these regulations are
faithfully carried out in every school on
the reservation under your charge.
Very respectfully,
(Signed)      '   .1. I). C. Atkins,
Commissioner.
We refuse to consider the question
whether English or Indian is the
better medium of instruction. We
simply say to the bureau, "Hands
off; it is none of your business."
And upon the  same rule,   The
Christian Union has this comment:
It is simply monstrous that there
should be a square mile of territory
in the United States in which the i
national government should be able, j
by despotic decree, to determine the j
conditions under which a free relig-
; ious society, which asks no support
and no favors from the government,
! may carry on its work.   We should j
j be glad to have the religions socie- j
I ties make an appeal to the Presi- .
j dent to have this order rescinded,
not because they wish to use the In- J
j dian vernacular, but because they
I demand liberty to make their own
rules and regulations without let or
hindrance of any kind from the Indian Bureau.   A third regulation,
it should be added, apparently modifies somewhat the operation of this
second ride, since it permits native
Indian teachers to teach in the Indian vernacular in schools not supported in whole or in part by the
government, and at remote points
where   there   are   no   government
schools.   But this modification of
the effect of the order does not in the
least modify its despotic and wholly
indefensible   character.     In some
respects, it intensifies the objections
to the order: since it impliedly forbids all use of vernacular except by
Indian teachers, and suggests to the
missionary societies that, if they establish a missionary school in a remote region, it may at any time be
broken up if a government school is
put along side of it.
The Interior does not take kindly
to being bulldozed after the Commissioner's fashion.    It remarks:
Here, if any thing is meant, we
have the  general government unjustly, if not tyrannically, assuming
a right to  dictate the manner in
which the Presbyterian Church, or
any other   church,  shall   conduct
missionary  schools to which that
government is not asked to contrib-
■ ute a single red  cent.     Commis-
| sioner Atkins may as well take no-
j tice that the Presbyterian Church
will exercise its rights to go upon
Indian reservations for strictly missionary purposes when it pleases;
: to open missionary schools where ii
: pleases;    and   to    conduct   those
schools as it pleases, so long as it
'. inculcates a sound morality, a pure
religion, and obedience to constitutional authority.   If the government
can afford to molest it in such work,
the Church can well afford to stand
the molestation. »
The Congregationalist, in moderate but positive language, agrees
with the others, and makes a further point in regard to the exclusive
use of English in the government
schools:
The provision that only the English tongue shall be used in government schools, is needlessly strict.
: That language should be used, the
\ use of whicli will most rapidly and
thoroughly  promote the  object of
| the schools.    We can conceive instances in which the sudden, abrupt
substitution of English for the vernacular may do great harm.   We
heartily believe   that the English
should be taught as fast, and be
used generally as soon as may be
wisely possible; but to insist upon
it alone, from the present day on,
we believe to be a blunder. As for
the missionary schools, it does nol
concern the government whether
they give instruction in English or
Indian, so long as they refrain from
asking the government for support.
The specification relating to the
missionary schools, as The Christian Union properly remarks, is a
wholly improper interference with
their liberty.
The Interior concludes that:
Upon the whole, these instructions contain no improvement upon
the first. Public sentiment seems
to have forced Mr. Atkins to try to
escape by crawling through a very
small knot-hole, in which he has
become badly stuck. It should
hold him there until be backs down
squarely from a wrong position. It
most certainly will.
The Advance, after drawing a
parallel between Commissioner Atkins and the King of Dahomey,
thinks that something ought to be
done about it:
That an official of the United
States Government should have the
impudence to flourish the manners
of mi oriental and barbaric despot
in the face of our American citizenship, and in these ways to insult
the hitherto unquestioned freedom
of religious and missionary organizations in this country, is a fact
sufficiently astounding to arrest universal indignation. What bus become of the spirit of '76, one is
forced to ask, that these un-American assumptions of these Washington officials should be tolerated for
a day, much less for six months:'
The tacit endorsement of it on the
part of the administration is a matter which freedom-loving America 11
citizens will be likely to say something about before the year is over.
Meantime, Congress can lind no
more pertinent subject for emigres
si inal investigation than tins.
The following action of the Southern Methodists, in Commissioner
Atkins' own State, is significent and
encouraging:
RESOLVED, That the Memphis Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, being in entire accord
and hearty sympathy with the work of
that noble institution, the American Bible Society, and understanding that this
Society is being cramped in its operations on account of the government seeking to prevent the Indians of Dakota and
the Northwest from using the Scriptures
in their own tongues, respectfully request
the Secretary Ot the Interior to rescind
the action which prevents the use of the
Scriptures in the Indian tongues in the
missions and mission schools.
J. II. Evans,
David Leith,
Warneh Moore.
The above is a true copy of a resolution   unanimously  passed   by the Memphis Conference, November 18, 1887.
K. II. Maiion, Secretary.
It is almost as bad to do a good
thing in a bad way as to do a bad
thing. The Indian must be denationalized eventually in order to
make an American citizen of him,
but the recent effort to do it by forbidding the teaching of the Indian
language, however well meant, is
thoroughly vicious.—Journal of Education.