Collection: Directories and Documents > Tanis Thorne Native Californian & Nisenan Collection

About This Item:

Title: Funding the California Indian Superintendency Collection Type: Directories and Documents Collection Name: Tanis Thorne Native Californian & Nisenan Collection # of Pages: 13 Download PDF: User Login Required Download OCR Text: User Login Required

Date Scanned: 2024-09-03 14:21:59 OCR Software Version #: tesseract 5.4.1 Item Sourced From: PDF First Created: 2025-03-17 03:17:31 Last Updated: 2025-03-17 03:17:31

Original Held At: Searls Historical Library Location: 161 Nevada City Hwy, Nevada City, CA 95959

Page: of 13  

Historical Society of Southern California he Indian appropriation bill was nearenate, Senator Allen Thurman (Demthat so few had debated any ample, in February 1871 t ing final approval in the S ocrat-Ohio), expressing concern part of the bill, stated: ‘Here is a bill that appropriated by the million, and there are not ten Senators in this body that understands one third of the appropriations in it or the reasons for them. If this were a party measure . . . every seat would be full; but when it is simply to vote away $5,000,000 out of the Treasury more than half the Senators are away. Senator Cornelius Cole’s (Republican-California) motion instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to invite the attendance of absen members attests to the validity of Thurman’s assertion. Six mem bers eventually returned. The bill was passed but the affirmative — entees by only two. In 1869 the chair was ~ votes exceeded abs forced to break a two to two tie.“° And all this took place at time when public pressure had forced Congress to take an in creased interest in Indian affairs.*’ The lack of Congressional . interest is further demonstrated by limited debate participation. Although funds were adequate and Congress added a half million — dollars above Bureau requests to appropriations, it was not really “3 Congressional action but the decision of a small group of men : acting out of self-interest. Of nearly forty amendments proposed in both houses, for example, thirty-five were introduced by Calives or committeemen. Indeed, debate in some 2 fornia representati years was the exclusive domain of California representatives concerned with obtaining federal funds for the state’s economy and committeemen concerned with the budget. Congress as a whole did not then fund the California Superintendency. In fact, it can be argued with considerable validity that Congress until the coming of the Peace Policy surrendered its con— stitutional prerogative to the Executive Branch. It was the Bureau which first discovered liberal appropriations had not led to self— sufficiency. Until the post-war period, California appropriation objectives were determined by the Bureau and merely ratified by — Congress. This was particularly true as a result of the rejection of . the 1851-52 treaties, which left Congress few guidelines of what had to be appropriated. Only with public pressure, the realization . ( Funding the California Indian Superintendency that Indian affairs in general had grown too expensive, and an _ Indian outbreak on the plains during the Civil War did Congress oe to take an interest in policy. Nevertheless, there was 2 substantial rise in debate participation indicative of an upurge in interest in Indian appropriations or an understanding of _. the relationship of funding to policy execution. Admittedly the House, which only debated California appropriations three ti before 1865, became more involved in Indian affairs Baek interest stemmed largely from a desire to reverse the Senat " domination of Indian affairs decision making. Moreove tie Bureau was the only source of information on California affai ‘ a fact which opponents of appropriations often implied sey committeemen were largely dependent upon Bureau eeeaatlon, While they constituted a good source of data, California repr ae tatives were probably far from unprejudiced. The Bure ni conjunction with the California delegation controlled until i jesse 1865 the basis upon which appropriations were approved. In answering the how, why, and who of California appropri tions, the purpose has been to explore another facet in de i ne mentation of policy. When a study of this nature is shins with an examination of the administration of funds and olic historians can hopefully begin to more fully a fae: ie fundamental question of the impact of policy. Finally, the i : of success or failure of policy as conceived by both ae B eau and Congress can be better discussed. The purpose pee ties been to provide the basis for such a study of the California Superintendency and t o suggest the means for inatio of the whole of Indian affairs. ——