OCR Text |
Show and permit the people of Colorado and New Mexico to have that safe intercommunication to which they are entitled. 28 Stronger expression of the whites' antipathy towards the Indians than were contained in these two petitions was in the local press. The Aspen Weekly Times editorialized that: There should be no backdown. The Indians should either leave the state or be cleaned out. They say they will make it warm for the militia. We will now see how much backbone Governor Adams [ Governor of Colorado] has. 29 In response to these expressions two more removal bills were introduced during the first session of the 50th Congress. Both asked again for Ute removal to Utah. The first, Senate Bill Number 104, called for the appointment of a commission which would be authorized to negotiate with the Indians for removal to the Uintah Valley area. 30 The second bill, House Bill Number 1265, introduced on January 4, 1888, asked that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized to remove the Indians from Colorado to the Territory of Utah. 31 Commissioner Atkins responded to these bills in his report to the Committee on Indian Affairs. He repeated what he had said in 1886 and stated that he found no significant change in affairs at the reservation which would alter his past views..? 2 He did note, though, that during the interim period he had visited the reservation and found " more than half of the tribe expressed, through their representatives, the strongest objections to removal from their reservation, which would seem to indicate that some of the Indians had undergone a change of feeling since the date of the [ his] letter of April 5, 1886.33 Even with this apparent change of attitude the Department was still of the opinion that the Utes should be moved. Where to remove the Utes continued as the vital question. Atkins seriously questioned in his report the value of moving the Indians to the Uintah Reservation. He did not think there was enough agricultural land to support the people already there without the addition of the Southern Utes. 34 Because Senate Bill Number 104 asked for the removal of the Utes to this area, Atkins thought it best not to support that particular bill but rather to support the one asking that the Secretary of the Interior be given the responsibility of negotiating with the Indians on the point of removal. If the Indians then wanted to go to the Uintah Valley that question could be negotiated with the commission. The Commissioners would then approach the Indians already settled in that area for their approval to have the Southern Utes relocated near or with them. 35 The question of the availability of agricultural land had to be answered before removal could take place. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill were enacted, but were rather, once again, allowed to die in committee without action. However, this time, the removal problem was not allowed to die completely as an issue in the halls of Congress. In 28. Ibid., pp. 1989- 90. 29. Aspen Weekly Times, August 27, 1887. 30. Morgan to Secretary, op. cit., p. 10; U. S., Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, Vol. XIX. Part 1, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., December 2, 1887, p. 21. Hereafter cited as Congressional Record, Vol. XIX, . . . 31. Ibid.; Congressional Record, Vol. XIX, op. cit.. House, January 4, 1888, p. 208. 32. Ibid., p. 11. 33. Ibid.; House of Representatives Report No. 836, p. 8. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., p. 9. - 38- |