other person living, to pick out or name twelve White River male Utes, over sixteen years of age, who were not guilty, directly or indirectly, as principals or accomplices before the fact, in the Thoroburgh attack or in the Agency massacre. I know these Indians well enough to know that these attacks were perfectly understood and deliberately planned, I cannot be made to believe that a single one of them, of common-sense and intelligence, was ignorant of what was to take place, and that knowledge extended far beyond the White River band. There were plenty of recruits from both the Los Pinos and the Uintah bands. In withholding supplies from the White River Utes the Secretary of the Interior is simply obeying the law. He cannot, except upon his own personal responsibility, issue supplies to a hostile Indian tribe, and the country will hold him accountable for a departure from his line of duty. Inferentially the Indians are justified by “H. H.” in their attack upon Thornburgh’s command. Their object was to defend “their own lands—lands bought, owned, and paid for.” Bought of whom, pray? Paid for by whom? To whom was payment made? The soldiers were making no attack; they contemplated none. The agent had no authority to order an attack. He could not proclaim war. He could have no control whatever over the troops. But his life was in danger. The honor of his family was at stake. He asked for protection. “H. H.” says he had no right to it. His life and the honor of his aged wife and of his virgin daughter are gone, and “H. H.” is the champion of fiends who wrought the ruin.
Washington, D. C., Feb. 6th, 1880.
The most fitting reply to the assertions in this extraordinary document was by still further citations from the sworn testimony given before the Congressional committees—evidence with which volumes could have been filled.
LETTER III
To the Editor of the Tribune:
Sir,—In reply to the letter in Sunday's Tribune, headed “The
Starving Utes,” I would like to place before the readers of The
Tribune some extracts from sworn testimony taken in Colorado
on the subject of the Sand Creek massacre. The writer of this
letter says:
“The Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians assembled at Sand Creek were not under the protection of a United States fort.”
