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 signed the Indians’ welfare first priority usually argued from a humanitarian view. An emphasis upon white welfare led debaters to view appropriations from a practical standpoint of prevention of war, austerity, and denial of government responsibility for the Indians. Some who placed priority upon white welfare as well as some Indian sympathizers felt the tribesmen should be removed from the path of white settlement, relocated on reservations, and forced toward civilization through minimal government aid. Others, opposing this survival o assistance in the form of subsistence and agricultural instruction. Another fundamental difference concerned how much ~ given objective. Indeed, the bulk © of floor debate centered upon how much money should be a expended to implement a vaguely defined policy. As a result, . em of balane© money would accomplish any debate participants were confronted with the probl ing these two major questions — the specifics of policy implemen~ tation and execution cost. But in the end, the execution of policy as embodied in appropriations came down to the question of how 4 to best carry out a basically vague policy for the greatest benefit . to both Indians and whites at the least possible cost. In the end, © debaters were guided by their own interpretation of the major 3 criteria of necessity, cost, and feasibility. Of course, the issues — kers, in fact, prob© ably did not consciously weigh decisions in this light, but these a were not always this clear cut and many spea were the assumptions upon which they operated. In addition to the question of why funds were approved, there is that of who debated California appropriations. A general profile indicates that in the Senate the typical solon was 7% of the © r represented — membership and sat on pertinent committees 0 California (81%). (See Table 2.) Most Senate speakers were 4 either Democrats (38%) or Republicans (27%) who representeda western (39%) or northern (36%) state. In the House, speakers” were only 1% of the membership and were less likely than in the . t California (61%). House = debaters in the main were either Democrats (54%) or Republicans” (33%) who represented a western (54%) or northern (37%) state. It is evident from these statistics, first of all, that representa:tives from southern states took little part in funding the California Senate to sit on committees or represen { the fittest attitude, were con4 cerned with Indian well-being and argued in favor of government © ( Funding the California Indian Superintendency areal ae a °F the interest was among memmia delegation an committee mem bare prosematives were the only debaters 42% ee se en oar nek ae time in the House. The combination of Be s and California delegates were the major es a 4 of the time in the Senate and 87% of the time in es 4 ad ees yen a figures are less decisive, it was Detoaats 4 ae aw 7) showed the most interest in California apes pri ae shieapeierd small number of men made the ics ae f°) HA policy was to be administered. These ! and appropriations. . : : a age saul from the Re teks eee aoe ee eae f ps of speakers and Republican 4 peer OS ee a meri in the percentage of participants 4 ee eon : 2 T e House, on the other hand, showed an eae C i s ss i artis were made by the House _ ale ues = ebated the bill, fewer Republicans spoke, cael es a ct i ab were from western states. Ce rnia-committee membershi a eae ae in funds was less arauannied re ae Silanes mn ) ten as they rose in relation to the increase eee DEF eae Thus party affiliation and residence Seale P ae an the percentage of California-committee of Congress in hfortatmaia case ; in Bie a onstrate the f pe oe hee ane the Senate debated gate ae = gti her aia 8 times, or 65% and 35% respectively. les ye appropriations were approved in the Senty out any floor debate and 65% in the House. * 4 ee ane to demonstrate a cause and effect relace a rrictiaats, dotetamenboanie tin tele eit Er tion and geographic eedion of io: alee ee funding. Nevertheless, fluctuations in hele ee oat 4 ; Q ors closela eo haere of ae oe although it ee 2 ecise impact, one is orced to concl a ets a not insignificant role in funding the eae 5 perintendency. At the same time, field conditions, effectiveness