Washington, D. C., an. 26th, 1880

DEAE MADAM,-In reply to your letter of the 32d instant, I beg leave to say that if an Indian tribe could maintain an action in the courts of the United States to assert its riglhts, I should ob ject to it just as little as I would object to the exercise of the same privilege on the part of white men. What I do object to is the collcction of money from philanthropic and public-spirited pcrsons, osonsibly for the benefit of the Indians, but in fact for the benefit of attorneys and others who are to be paid for again testing a question which has been tested more than once, and has been decided by the Supreme Court so clearly and comprehen- sively that further testing secms utterly futile. You say that therc arc lawyers of skill and standing rendy to undertake the case Of course there are such. You can find lawyers of skill and standing to undertakc for a good fee any case, however hope- less: that is their busincss. But I am by no means of your opin- ion that, whether it be futile or not, the experiment should be tried once more, and for this purpose the collection of noney should be further encouraged. It cannot bo said in this case that if the attempt will not help it will not hurt. There seems to be now a genuine and active interest in the Indian question spring ing up. Many sincere friends of the Indian are willing to spend tiuie and moncy for the promotion of their welfare. movemcnt can do great good if wisely guided in the direction of attainable objects; but if it be so conducted that it can result only in putting money into the pockets of private individuals, without any benefit to the Indians, the collapse will be as hurtful as it seems to be inovitable. It will not only be apt to end u movement which, if well dirceted, might have become very use- ful, but it will also deter the sincere friends of the Indians who contributed their means in the hopc of accomplishing something from further efforts of that kind, so that we may find it very diffi cult, for a long time at least, to engage this activc sympathy again. Confidence once abused does not reviye very quickly. Trhis is my vicw of the case. You ask me "how it would be possible to take money given by thousands of people for one specific purposc, and usc it for another and different purpose," meaning the support of Indian schools. It would, in my opinion, be far better to lay the matter in its iruc aspect frankly before the contributors, and to Such a