thousand, instead of three thousand. Why could he not have said to the Indians: "Bring in the chiefs, I will await the decision," or, "The agent will be here, or is here; talk to him "; but no, sir, the officers were willing to take the responsibility without referring it to the agent.
And here we find a discrepancy between the report of the head of the Indian Bureau and the Secretary of War. We find that the Indian agent, in detailing the facts, gives them as they are, perfectly authenticated by the best evidence; and we find the officers giving a different glossary. These statements have to be reconciled. If I wished information in relation to the army purely, I would, with great pleasure and respect, go to the Secretary of War, for I know his intelligence would respond to any inquiry that is proper to his duty; but if I want information in relation to the Indians, I go to the head of the Indian Bureau, where I expect to find an able, intelligent, and attentive gentleman. In the present instance, I am happy to say that I fully appreciate his conduct. I respect his capacity and his consistency in the discharge of the duties assigned to him.
Sir, do we find in the report of the Secretary of War as complete information in relation to Indian matters as we receive from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs? I think not. In relation to the recent outrages against the Delaware Indians, in the usurpation of their territory in disregard of every pledge made by this Government, we find that the Secretary of War has not reported the delinquency, or the criminality, of the officers engaged, but it comes in an authentic shape from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. What should be done in relation to this matter, it is not necessary that I . should say. 1 gave my opinion the other day in relation to what ought to I be done.
Mr. Shields. The honorable Senator alludes to the delinquency of some officers of the army. Now, when charges are made against certain officers, I want to get at their names. Let them be punished if they have committed a fault. I do not like to hear a general accusation without specifying the names of the individuals. Will the honorable Senator mention them?'
Mr. Houston. I assure the Senator that I do not exactly recollect; but I am perfectly willing to go as far as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Doubtless they are matters of delicacy; and as an investigation may be pending—a court of inquiry, or a court-martial—in relation to the officers, he may not think proper to exhibit their names to the public. But he says that two officers of the army were engaged in it; and I go as far as I am justified, in giving a statement which is authentic, I have no doubt—I am afraid it is; I wish I had a doubt. Our functionaries there, whether civil or military, are bound to protect the Indians equally with the whites. I want to see the officers impressed fully with the importance of their responsibilities. I want to see them as ready to maintain the dignity and character of the United States, and preserve, unsullied, its integrity, as I do its arms and its chivalry. It is as much their duty to do so; and there is a chivalry always in protecting the weak against the strong, the defenseless against the aggressor. If the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is prepared to say that no officer of the army has been concerned in this nefarious transaction, I am perfectly willing to waive it. If I have done injustice, show it to me, and I will take it back. But if the
