civilization as sickly sentimentality; and, on the other hand, that class of philanthropists who, in their treatment of the Indian question, pay no regard to surrounding circumstances and suspect every policy contemplating a reduction of the Indian reservations of being a scheme of spoliation and robbery, gotten up by speculators and “land-grabbers.” With the first class it seems useless to reason. As to the second, they do not themselves believe, if they are sensible, that twenty-five years hence millions of acres of valuable land will, in any part of the country, still be kept apart as Indian hunting-grounds. The question is, whether the Indians are to be exposed to the danger of hostile collisions, and of being robbed of their lands in consequence, or whether they are to be induced by proper and fair means to sell that which, as long as they keep it, is of no advantage to anybody, but which, as soon as they part with it for a just compensation, will be a great advantage to themselves and their white neighbors alike. No true friend of the Indian will hesitate to choose the latter line of policy as one in entire accord with substantial justice, humanity, the civilization and welfare of the red men and the general interests of the country.
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
Personal.
My dear Schurz: I am glad to get the Post and trace your
hand daily in its columns. In the number I received yesterday
was an echo to some thoughts of my own in relation to
the late “impressive utterances” (as the Herald styled them)
of ex-Senator Conkling on the great and paramount duty of
“holding up the hands” of Vice-President Arthur in the hour
of his possible call to the Presidential office, and giving among
other reasons the fact that in the absence of any President
pro tem. of the Senate and Speaker of the House, his single
