Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
Malfeasance or Indirection [California Indian Superintendency] (12 pages)
Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Previous Page (or Left Arrow key)
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 12
The Historical Society of Southern California
the year’s appropriation. This was particularly true of the two
major appropriation heads—general and incidental funds and .
removal and subsistence monies.** Consequently, it would appear bureau failure to halt continued indebtedness rested in some
measure with itself.
Such a conclusion is, however, unjust. In an attempt to provide
some fiscal control, the bureau adopted the policy of requiring
requisitions before remitting funds. Such a procedure was and
still is sound fiscal practice. But herein was the source of the
problem—most superintendents were extremely dilatory in
making their requisitions. Hanson, for example, protested in July
1862 that he had not received funds for the first quarter of 1862.
But he did not submit his request until after the end of the quarter. Henley prepared his request for the first quarter of 1855 on
December 29, 1854."” Considering the time required to communicate by mail, he could not rightly expect funds until the following June. It was standard practice for most superintendents to
submit their requisitions so close to the beginning of the quarter
that mail facilities made it impossible to receive money in time.
In this light the complaints of lack of funds seem a bit unfair, But
the bureau’s insistence upon requisitions only compounded the
problem, for the superintendent short on funds could only turn
to credit. In the process the bureau lost fiscal control. Thus, it
would appear bureau attempts at sound administration were in
this instance counterproductive. But as events proved, an easy
solution was well-nigh impossible. Well-intentioned bureau officials could not in good conscience furnish superintendents money
without knowing how it would be spent. Superintendents, jealous
of their authority and finding credit easily available, did not rush
to comply with bureau procedures. The frontier character of the
superintendency only ageravated the situation and contributed to
the impasse.
A second major obstacle in the way of proper fiscal administration was misapplication and misappropriation of funds. California’s first superintendent, Edward F. Beale (1852-1854), was
apparently removed for allowing his accounts to pass into arrears.*® The real reason, however, for his removal probably
stemmed from impolitic disciplining of subordinates.** Frémont
was also apparently offended by an investigation of his beef con[ 280 ]
California Indian Business Affairs (
tract. This seems apparent from President Millard Fillmore’s inquiry as to whether Beale’s duties included an examination of
the claim. Fillmore further asked if a different person could not
be assigned to look into the Frémont matter and if another post
could be found for Beale.*? Removed without the benefit of an
investigation, subsequent reports of his successor, Thomas J. Henley, and Treasury Officer Browne showed Beale’s operation of
the superintendency had been entirely honest.”*
Henley (1854-1 859) was also accused of ‘“‘wastefulness, neglect”? and “mismanagement.” One California newspaper suggested that ‘‘venality and corruption” marred his administration,
particularly since, in spite of “large appropriation” by Congress,
“but a fractional portion of the whole amount ever reaches the
object designed.” Another attributed mismanagement and decaying reservations to the fact Henley “devoted his time and attention to political objects.”””* Alarmed by such reports, the bureau
asked Browne to investigate.”
At the Mendocino reserve, Browne found Henley had been a
party to the misapplication of government property and funds.
Not only had he sanctioned the use of public resources in the construction of a privately owned mill but had allowed it to be
located on the reserve. Misapplication included the utilization of
Indian laborers, the services of a carpenter while on the government payroll, and the issuance of Indian stores to white laborers
working on the mill. Besides being “fraudulent and disreputable
practices,” Browne considered Henley’s action detrimental to the
Indians. The loaning of supplies had forced tribesmen from the
reserve in search of food and the proximity of whites encouraged
the type of contact which government policy sought to avoid.”
Also under Henley’s administration, the signing of blank
youchers prevailed to “a considerable extent” and, in Browne’s
estimation, contributed to exorbitant costs. For example, one contractor, consenting to sign a blank voucher, supplied goods valued
at $3,552. But when submitted by Henley, the bill came to $8,123.
In another case Henley persuaded his clerk to sign a blank and
then proceeded to move the clerk’s employment date back three
months. A second special investigator confirmed other instances.*”
Browne also found Henley had sold his own cattle to the government at a considerable profit. Animals delivered by the super[ 281 ]