| OCR Text |
Show The Colorado group was successful in postponing for years the enactment of this allotment plan. They saw the alternative plan to removal, at best, as a compromise, and fought hard to have the original removal bills passed by Congress. Two bills calling for the confirmation of the Ute Agreement were introduced in Congress before the end of 1889, the first by Senator Teller, Senate Bill Number 1323, and the second by Representative Townsend, House Resolution Number 156.64 Both bills failed to pass either House of Congress although Townsend's bill was reported favorably from the committee to the floor of the House. 65 In each of the next two years bills were also introduced calling for Ute removal Teller introduced the bill, Senate Bill Number 3632, on April 23, and Senator Wolcott introduced the bill, Senate Bill Number 362. on December 10.66 But as ^ o r e ™ * bj, l l s . f a i l e d t 0 r e c e i v e t h e needed action by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I his failure could have been, in part, in response to the Indian Bureau's opposition to removal. The Colorado delegation refused to give up. Representative Townsend once again introduced a bill in the 52nd Congress to confirm and ratify the 1888 agreement. The bill, House Resolution Number 67, was introduced on January 5 1892 and immediately sent to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 67 The Committee reported the bill to the Committee of the Whole of the House on April 26, 1892, with the request that the bill be passed. 68 The members of the House failed to approve the recommendations, and the bill died without action being taken on it. 69 The Southern Ute removal continued to be stymied by Congressional and Executive indecision. The Secretary of the Interior noted in his annual report for the year 1893 the state of the Southern Utes: I I J3SU b e C n n e a r l y f i v e ye a r s s i n c e t b i s agreement was concluded, and the interest of the Indians render it very important that some definite action in regard to their status be taken at an early date. The unsettled condition of mind consequent upon this inaction naturally has an unfavorable effect upon the Indians, and is doing more to retard their advancement than any other known disinclination to agricultural pursuits or home making, except of the most temporary character. 70 During the two years, 1893 and 1894, two more Congressional attempts were made to have the Indians removed from their Colorado location. Both failed. The first attempt was made by Representative J. C. Bell of Montrose, Colorado. His bill, House Resolution Number 1984, was introduced into the House on September 9, 1893.71 The second attempt was made one year later, January 30, 1894, by Senator 64. U. S., Congress, Senate, " Bills Introduced," Congressional Record, Vol. XIX, Part 1 51st Cong. 1st. Sess December 16, 1889, pp. 173, 230. It seemed that both Congressional Committees on Indian Affairs were not pleased with the prospect of paying for the removal of the Indians, yet realized that the present position of the Utes was not conducive to the " civilizing process. a 65. H W. Dawes to Dorman B. Eaton, March 1, 1890, Indian Rights Association Collection, Letters Received, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 66. Congressional Record, Vol. XIX, April 23, 1890, p. 370; U. S., Congress, Senate, " Bills Introduced Congressional Record, Vol. XXIII, Part 1, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., December 10, 1891, p. 29. Hereafter cited as Congressional Record, Vol. XXIII, 67. Congressional Record, Vol. XXIII, op. cit., p. 126. 68. U. S., Congress, House, Southern Ute Indians, Colorado, House of Representatives, Report No. 1205, 52nd Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. No. 3045, April 26, 1892. 69. Report of the Secretary of the Interior. 1894, op. cit, p 96 70. Ibid. « . . I}' U S - Con9ress, House, " Bills Introduced," Congressional Record. Vol. XXV, Part 2. 53d Cong., 1st Sess., September 9, 1893, p. 1360. - 48- |
