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
whose .fiscal and administrative conduct was questionable and
who lacked the confidence of the populace seemed the logical
course.
After 1859, the direct remittance of funds to agents was arother difficulty. Commissioner A. B. Greenwood under the author. .
ization of President James C. Buchanan forwarded monies di-rectly to agents rather than through the superintendent’s office.
Such a practice resulted in obvious confusion. McDuffie, for example, engaged in the examination of Henley’s accounts, learned
$80,000 had been sent to agents without his knowledge. Since
they failed to furnish him ‘an intelligible account of the particular disbursements,” he had no way of knowing if the money —
had been applied to claims arising under Henley’s administration. “So long as the officers . . . are permitted to contract debts,
and expend public money on their own responsibility,” protested
McDuffie, “I can have no control over the proper disposition of
the limited appropriation.”
Deciding to take matters into his own hands, McDuffie issueda circular instructing agents to conduct all fiscal business through ©
his office. The reaction was not long in coming. Geiger, for example, reminded McDuffie that he too was a “commissioned
officer,” whose appointment and bond allowed some discretion.
He added that “this ‘Circular’ will but embarrass & retard the ~
business of each Agency.” In rebuttal, the superintendent advised
Commissioner Greenwood that “‘. . . unless there is some controlling power to check extravagances or error in judgement..
there can be no certainty that funds appropriated will be properly
applied.”*’ The bureau in apparently continuing direct remittances sided with the agents. The dispute was temporarily resolved with McDuffie’s resignation a few months later, Perhaps
he was fearful of being held responsible for funds over which he
had little direct control.
The practice was probably an attempt to provide a constructive
remedy to the charge that most agents were forced to operate on
credit. But success of the system depended upon cooperation of
agent and superintendent. Such collaboration, as in the case of
McDuffie and Geiger, was virtually nonexistent. Many agents,
recalling the rapid turnover of superintendents, probably concluded that they really had no superior and, thus, need not be
[ 284]
California Indian Business Affairs
~ concerned with the one currently in office. The political nature of
_ appointments which gave agents a feeling of independence was
_ probably a factor as well, The bureau’s theory of sound fiscal
_ policy in this instance proved unworkable in the field because of
_ factors beyond its direct control.
A fourth problem concerned the regulation of the number and
salary of blacksmiths, farmers, carpenters, laborers and other
~ lower level employees. Henley proved particularly troublesome
in this regard. Commissioner George W. Manypenny warned
him in 1855 that the number was “beyond what is considered to
be necessary” and “at rate of compensation apparently high and
extravagant.” Yet, Bailey’s investigation indicated Henley had
not taken corrective action. Again he was directed to dismiss ‘‘all
~ such persons who are not absolutely and indispensably necessary.” Henley allowed many to remain on the job another six
months, but he eventually complied with the directive.”
Commissioner William P. Dole, favoring “some system of
retrenchment of the expenses,” was also con fronted with the problem in the 1860s. It seemed to him, considering the number and
pay of lower level personnel, “the benefits shown to have been derived are deemed wholly inadequate to the liberal expenditures.
..” Particularly since 500 acres were then being farmed in the
southern district by eleven employees at a yearly cost of nearly
$8,000. But it was often difficult for the bureau to obtain informatio about various employees. D. N. Cooley found in 1865 that
agents under Maltby failed to report “the number of employees, the manner in which they are employed, and the results
of their labor.’®* Most commissioners came to advocate a minimum number of employees at as low a salary as possible on the
premise that it not only saved money but helped “civilize” the
Indians by compelling them to work.
Dismissal, however, only served to emphasize another fiscal
problem. Removal meant payment of wages and most superintendents were without funds for that purpose. Indeed, many employees under Henley had not received their pay for upwards of
ayear at the time they left office. As a result, most had no choice
but to remain on the reserves. Doctor T. M. Ames, for example,
protested to Senator Gwin that “most of us are in debt for our
supplies [and] compelled to stay here. . . until we get a settle[ 285 J