The Bismarck Tribune Newspaper, March 8, 1927, Page 7

@ "> tered about, but an impart D. a hype Victor L. Berger (Wiscon- is ‘TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1927 * Interesting Discussion Presented in Letters Passing Between Local Author and N. Y. Critic The castern press corded Soldiers of tl favorable reception. (New York), however, wi dis. posed to look with favor Its reviewer insisted that the n id no right or title; that the Sioux, in particular, failed to o! serve their treaties with other tribes; that the Indian was not to be take usly as a soldier; and finally, tl the book was over- laudatory of the Indian and unjustly + censorious of Custer. os interesting correspondence fol- wed. The Outlook reviewer, Mr. W. J.| Ghent, is a writer and an author of Rational Prominence.‘ For a time 1911-12) he was secretary to Con- Lato ac: lains a ver; The Outlool son.) In 1 the California Outlook. author of Our Benevo! (1902), Mass and Clu: cialism and Success (191 .tor of Appeal (1916), “17 he was editor of! He is the! nt Feudalism | (1904), So-| 0) and edi- Socialist Classics Bismarck, North Dakota,} October 14, 1926. The Editor, Outlook Magazine, New York City ¢ Dear Si _L have read with interest the: re- view of soldiers of the Plains in your| issue of September 29th. T am sure you desire to do justice, to the Indian, and it is because the review includes a number of state-| ments which seem unfair to the red| man that I venture to offer a few words in explanation, (1). Treaty-breaking among the; &ndian tribes may be admitted; but/ so, also, may the admission be allow- ed that treaty-breaking and conquest, to some extent, hi: gress of civil all say that we thus | acquire @ special right, or any right, ito break treaties? One may say of the Indians that they were just a lot! of savages with no legitimate basis of ownership. It is very easy to inake such statements, Nevertheless, we cannot, in conscience, ignore the fact that, whatever the Indian’s title, we| recognized it as a good title when we entered into treaties with him. Indian Not a Soldier (2) Your reviewer says the In-! dian was a fighter but not a soldier. This seems like a contradiction of |j terms. If your reviewer means that ‘the Indian was not a soldier accord-| ing to the white man’s standards, all well and gocjl; but if he means to cast | doubt and suspicion on the Indian as| “a real fighter, then he must be will-} ing also to cast doubt and suspicion gi the testimony of such men as i Bourke and Cyrus Townsend Brady | —to mention a few outstanding au- thorities on the Indian soldier. The Indian wanted odd. True enough, perhap: tract from his he white man The Indian’ was outnumbered at the Powder River (March, 1876), at the Rosebud (June, 1876) and in almost all the battles fought by Joseph in| % id fail of 1877, yet in| j% ‘the summer the large majority of those battles the Indian was victorious, (4) Your reviewer has accepted ition the conclusion, whol. | eter thet the Indian gen- | wv.’ He al al the Indian lacked persistence and soon tired of a particular job of fighting. Custer Battle Cited The Custer Battle is-cited in illus- tration. The Indien did display lack of persistence there, that lack undoubted Uy the v.tai consideration, you will agree. We should not be forget that eight days previous to the Custer fight, perhaps half the number of Indians engaged at the Little Big Horn had turned back Crook with three times the number of men in the Terry column coming up with Gibbon, Why. then, should the In- dians at the Little Terry's 400 unless a shortage of am- munition had developed within the! Indian camp? (5) The reviewer contends that the book ig overlaudatory of the Indian and unjustly censorious of Custer. little has been rd of the In side in fifty y that a mere state- ment of his se may seem like un- due laudation; but the record cannot! pe denied. As for. Custer: The facts lly was imposed againat him—more's the pity! ‘ours very truly, * Very PTE. BYRNE. Pp. E. 473 W, 158th St., New York City, 5 November 16, 1926.' TMr. P. E. Byrne, Bismarck Bank Building, Bismarck, My dear Mr. Byrne I have carefully read your letter, to The Outlook regarding my review! of your book, “Soldiers of the Plains.” | I fail.to find in it anything which calls for a modification of my judg- | ment. I wrote of your book as @ work with which one may wholly dis- | agree and yet read and remem! with interest and a certain apprecia-| tion.” use of a wish that these| questions ber 4 be thoroughly discuss- ed, I hope that your book will be widely read. But I agree with almost none of its generalizations and with! but few of its statements of purport- ed fact, f I Beltane apn cauettes to the India I believe in giving him every oppor- tunity of which he can make benefi- cial ae = i canes see that 5 tinentalizing over his savage a te helps him in any way; and I am very eure that it does a grave injus- tice a tee white, who was s0 nee the im of savage's prope! for plunder, destruction, torture and massacte. Replying. to your numbered para- graphs I may say: * About Treaties 1, There has been, so far as I am aware, no thorough study of the history of treaty-making with the Indians, There has been a good deal of hysteria on the subject, and many outrageous falsehoods have been scat- ial survey e subject is yet to come, Treaty- eaking, as I have said, was a com- mon pastime among thé Indians. The Navajoes may have n the worst, with the Blackfeet a close second, but the Sioux were not far gv grt ‘They a not observe the ti 1968, to ich you gi so mucl ‘They repeatedly raided the ents on the south side of the North Platte, stealing ani and committing de- white men crossed predations; but the river in pursu' rested and jailed Fort Fetterman. is subordinate % s, Crook, Custer, King, Benteen, | it is true; but) 4 ick of ammunition, a very|3 ig Horn run from |, that. the Indian was a fighter, but not a idier. is seems like a contradiction of terms.” It is no contradiction. A Bowery thug or a western “bad man” may be a most desperate fighter and yet tiave none | of the qualities of a soldier. That certain eminent command paid tribute to the fighting qualities of the Indian does not settle the m: ter. You are aware, I presume, that the practice of praising the valor of the defeated enemy is as old as human _ histor aware, also, I pre- sume, that praise of the vanquished incidentally heightens the glory of the victor. No one of these command- erg would have hesitated to attack Indian force two or three times stronger than his own. What a fight- ef really things of the qualities of ah antagonist 1s to be judged by his willingness to attack that antagonist under the handicap of numbers and Position. Sometiines A Coward You te Ur lp a a “The Indian want- u add to it the “True cnough, perhaps; but does that detract from his stand- The white man You miss the point entitely. The history of the white man is full of incidents of at- tack in the face of odd: in battles with men of his own race as well as with savages. The known history of the red man reveals hardly a single such incident. In rtain respects and under certain circumstances the Indian was.® coward—a fact that so. strongly impressed Parkman. Others, who knew the Indian even better, have borne like testimo Your mention of the Powder Ri: and, the Rosebud fights and several engagements of Josep 3. 1. Rain-in-the-Face whi against Custer. 4. treating band does not -help the mat- ter. As.a rule, though by no means always, the Indian would fight st odds in defense of his wives children and pony herds. But he would rarely or never attack either white men or other red men except when he felt sure that all the advant- ages was on his side. In the account of the Powder River jfight in your book you have pictured an episode unrecognizable by any one who has consulted the available mate- rial on the subject, including the ac- count by: an officer who was also the correspondent of the New York Tribune. If you would but reflect that the total loss of the whites was four men killed and five men and om | officer wounded, you would see tha the scene you have depicted is some. what too picturesque to be accurate. All that you say about the Indians “hanging to the flanks of the at- tacking force,” “halting the enemy’ id “sendin, back. ...limping and beaten,” rhetorical ornament in conflict with the records. .Wha' ion is to have, happened there is tl a. A detachment of approximately 360 soldiers was sent to capturé and destroy ‘the village of Crazy Ho consisting of 105 lodges, which three warriors to a lodge (the usual estintate for a band oxpecting war) may have contained approximately 315 combatants, b. Without proper. disposition of the forces it attacked the village, in the early morning. c.. The Indians fled; and as their rear had been left unguarded, they were enabled to escupe and take ref in the rocky fastnesses over- looking the village, from where, in entire security, they kept up a vigorous fire. : completely d. The village was the pony. herd captured. Meatroped and » The Indians, about noon, made one forward movement, but when met bya sebeeatenion fire scurried | t! back to f. accomplished its main purpose—thor it failed to kill gl than a ee ee yea Wai Hoth ae capture y of them—an e frightful, cold pe movement, the detachment the return to its base. killed after the fight in and a 4 of the next day erd, which had ‘and which hed ornil pon: earded th Indians. ‘ re to make a clean-u) -® more. skillful commander’ wou! j done, started a fire of failu juding a‘ further | fa command, was re- | | recriminations which continued du: | ing the lifetime of most of the pai cipants. A few persons are fighting | this insignificant engagement yet. | Knowledge Not Definite 4. You write: “Your reviewer has ;Secepted without question the con- clusion, wholly unwarranted, that the (Indian, generall}, was better: armed |than the white soldier.” I reply that I have neither said, nor have even thought, anything of the kind. |The only expression I used on the subject is thi “ ;Whelmed by sheer tht of numbers and armament. This advantage should have enabled the Indians to | annihilate Reno on the same day j the one following, and Terry on the third day.” that the Indian |lack of persistenc occasion |was undoubtedly “imposed by the |lack “of ammunition.” neither nor any other white mat has any definite knowledge on that | subject; that the Indian testimony the matter is so conflicting as to jhave no value, and that the state- ,ment is a mere assumption, We have no reason to suppose that the Indians had exhausted or serious- lly drained their stock of ammunition. It is entirely reasonable to suppose ‘that they captured, from the saddle- ‘bags of the horses and from the ap- proximately 240 bodies of men that | fell within their lines, more ammuni- tion than they expended in the bat- ttle. On the Custer part of the field ! must have expended very little. | That this captured ammunition could |be used only in Springfield carbines and Colt revolvers is true; but the Indians had added to their stock of apons some 240 of each of these It is thus “q likely that they were better equipped at sun- set of the 25th than they had been ‘Custer was over-| I reply that! THE BISMARCK I think I am _ familiar with most of the estimates that have been m from Dr. Charles East- man's 1,200 to some that range high as 6,000. As a rule the Custe ites have preferred the larger num- bers, the anti-Custerities the smal er ones. The two most recent mates I have seen are those of Col. } Wheeler, in “Buffalo Days,” and ieut.-Col. Graham, in “The Story of jittle Big Horn.” The former, who is rabidly anti-Custer, gives from 4,000 to 4,500, and the latter, who is modefately anti-Custer, more 4,500. Graham has tried to say the last word on the battle, and his figures, however impossible of proof they may be, must be taken at least us a consensus of the really serious ienbts to settle this baffling prob- Hem. accepted.” Very truly yours, W. J. GHENT. Bismarck, No. Dak., November 20, 1926. | Mr. W. J. Ghent, . | 473 West 158th Street, New York City. | Dear Sir: 1 am in receipt of your letter of the 16th. Your opinions on matters of Indian history are of interest to me because, in a sense, they become the they accept them and publish them as their own, The Outlook as a magazine. to be fi It reaches people far above the average in intel- ligence. I believe that, in accept- and publishing your review, they have (unwittingly) done unjustice to themselves as well as to the Indian. + It is because of this that I regret the publication of your review, and that regret is intensified upon read- ing the letter w hich you have now favored me—without solicita- tion. T am unable to reconcile your as- surance that you ‘believe in justice to the Indian” with the statements contained in your letter. On the contrary, as I view the matter, you are either deliberately unfair to the It aims class of General George Armstrong Custer in the dress uniform of the 7th Cavalry, U. S. A. 2. 10 cut Tom Custer’s heart out and ate part of it. 3. Chief Gall who led the Indians rr _ 4. Sitting Bull, the great medicine man of the Sioux. horse, the only living thing to come out of Custer’s immediate command. He was found standing near master’s body. 6. Curley, the Crow scout, the only man in Custer’s immediate com He ran away before the battle and not during the battle as sometimes stated. {at noon. All this, moreover, leaves Chief 5. Comanche, Capt. Keogh his mand to escape Indian, or, you misstate the facts— ' - pinions of The Outlook when! I have high regard for | TRIBUNE casting them as accepted facts is morally wrong. On the other hand, I point to Sheridan’s order of June, 1868, to the armed invasion of the Black Hills by Custer (1874 to the armed invasion of the Indian’ ing grounds by Custer ment while Northern Pacifie Surveyors (them- selves transgressors) in the Summer of 1873, as specific violations of that treaty. See Soldiers of the Plains, p 16 & 84, Fantastic Speculations You indulge in fantastic specula- tions about the “assumed right of the Indian to hold land,” etc. In fact, your letter throughout is made up largely of imposing speculations and generalizations expressed with refreshing assurance and a superior You close this chapter with the all- enveloping statement that “the earth belongs to those who make social use of it.” This is very fine and lovely and beautiful to be sure; but it has no place in the discussion of the matter at hand. (2) Your comparison of the Indian fighter, as such, with a Bowery ihug is also interesting. You seem to think that to be a soldier one must always fight just like a white soldier or lose all right to be classed as a soldier in fact. What's the use in arguing such stuff? ersonally I was never in an Indian fight, and my knowledge of the In- diau’s qualifications as a soldier is derived from the ample testimony of such as Miles, Crook, Custer, King, Benteen- and Bourke. You object that the testimony of these men is hot to be trusted, and that their evidence “does not settle .the mat- I think it does settle the matter as nearly as it is possible to settle it at this late date. You do tate to invoke the name of Parkman as competent to establish your contention that, ig certain res- Pects and under certain circumstan- ces, the Indian was a coward. Don't you know that in certain respects and under certain circumstances any m —white or red—may be a coward? To prove the Indian's high standing as a soldier, I rely upon the word of well known officers of wide ex- perience in the field; while you are content to rest your case on the testimony of the peaceful Mr. Park- man, and others, unnamed. Hard to Follow (3) You dispose of the Powder River and Rosebud fights and the several engagements of Joseph's re- treating band with a wave of the hand. You infer, I believe, that since ere fighting for their wives children and pony herds their exploits should not receive serious consideration as a purely fighting roposition, 1 cannot follow your ine of reasoning. You persist in. general statements and reckless _as- sertions and let it go at that, Per- haps it is another case of my miss- ing the point altogether. I am sorry if it is so. You say that in my account of the Powder River fight I have pictured an “episode” not recognizable by any one who has consulted the available ference, you include yourself under that head. -In my opinion, it was never intended by those who made up the Indian record—which is the white man’s record of Indian activ- ities—that the “episode” in question should receive more than the min mum of public notice. I have rea I think, all the available material oi the subject, and much material not available to you or to the general In writing that chapter I ied mainly by the military reports, by the account of Captain Bourke, and by the stories of sol- diem who took part ih the campaign. I hve chosen to emphasize points and incidents as they seemed to me worth while without regard to wheth- er such points or incidents were em phasized, or slurred over, or e tirely ignored, by the official ports or by others, Therein lic the reason for the “episode,” you .like to. call it, not —— t,”” {and you will have it no other wa: Apparently you consider that a scene or an incident, if somewhat picturesque in presentation must nec- jes: e inaccurate; and you insist |that “hanging ks,” “halt- jing the enemy’ sending ‘him ‘back limping and beaten” is rhetor- lical ornament in conflict with the | records. Well, I appeal to the facts— {the bare facts—about which there is {no dispute. Let them tell their own | story: { Their Own Story On the morning of March 17, 1876 temperature in the neighborhood of out of consideration the other arms) if 1 may assume that you know them.’ 40 below—the troops, under command jossessed by the Indians, such as lances, bows and arrows, stone clubs, tomahawks and knives — weapons which would have been deadly enough jin the close combat of a charge. dozen times the Indians could have ‘overrun Reno's and Benteen’s lines. Several times it seemed that they were on the point of attempting to do so, They refrained; and when they learned that a force of only 400 |men, most of them “walking sol- di was coming up the river, they decamped. The Indians have given various reasons for their want of enterprise in this battle. The “lack of ammunition” excuse rarely ap- pears. They seem not to have thought of it until it was suggested to them ; by friendly white men, McLaughlin, | who knew more than any other white jman about the Indian side of the j battle, says that most of the war- \riors deserted the field in the early ‘evening of the 25th because the; | preferred taking part’in the celebr: ‘tion in the village to taking scalp: |and that the fact of the Indians’ greater fear of infantry than of | cavalry caused them to decamp on the 261 | of the case that a mere statement of it “may seem that thousands of pages have been given to the Indian’s side of the case, not merely as to the Custer battle but as to the cause of the Indian gen- erally. It has been the fashion for some years to present what is called “the Indian’s side.” My complaint re- garding your book is that it does not content itself witha “mere statement. of the case,” but that on every controverted nt it makes asser- tions favorable to the Indian. and almost never counterbalances them with the known facts favorable to the white, You are aware, of course, tt the Chivington magsacre has an- other side, stoutly upheld by good mee I ai agi ing ine ' habe ivington. I am saying merely tha when that story {» rightly told it must be fold in the Nght of all the In all such cases, it seems to jumbers foned With one more. instance 1. must close this too exte r. You ‘say in your book thas the “general- Mactiees at the I Little Big Horn was Bisa: pertoeay. thin’ your’ Tights efieeas dest me ues jut at ir sey that te number is “generally “number, 5. You say that the Indian's side, has been s6 little heard | like like undue laudation.’ You forget | of ‘the Ihdian |m Indians Leave No Record |. Coming to your comment No. 1. |1, should like to remind you that in the writing of Indian history—in deal ing with indian treaties and Ind | wars—there is a record to which w may refer; but it is the white man’s jrecord.. The Indian left no record. I therefore question the accuracy of your statements about treaty-break- ing being a common pastime among the Indians, and in which you under- jtake to fix the scale of culpability attaching to the Navajoes, the Black- |feet and the Sioux. But altogether aside from the a curacy or inaccuracy of your stat | ments in that regan, the subject ‘entirely out of place in your review, jand equally so in your lette: | leged treaty-breaking or, for that matter, actual treaty; peaking, among | Indian tribes, gives us no right what- lever to violate our “own. treatie | Whatever may have been the basis lof the Indian's title, it was. passed {as a title good for treaty-making pur- poses; at st, it was not disputed at the time of the making of ‘the treaty. Your suggestion is the first an donly thing I have ever across bringing forth the question of the Indian’s title as excuse or justi- fication for violating an Indian treaty. You say that, so far as you ure aware, there has been “no through study of the history of treaty-making with the Indians. There has been a good deal of hysteria on the subject and many outrageous falsehoods have been scattered about, but an impartial survey of the subject is yet to come.” I cannot see the point or.purpose of your statement except it be to con- fuse and befog. We have the treat jies themselves. They may be found in the books. We have the white man’s story of his own violation of those treaties. ed? Your .reference to “hysteri and “outrageous fal ood” is mei eg ‘ol sert that the Indians did not observe the tre: of 1868, and number of alleged raids If you record showing of alleged to any offic! orde: y investigat Indian infractions, I shall be glad to accept the Fbdings as e pavisking Indian responsibility; but your wil and reckless statements, run | What more is need- | I di alone, are worse than Useless, Broad: | feated Crook with miore tha: of Colonel Reynolds, surprised the | Indian camp of Crazy Horse on the Powder River, Montan: Without ;food or shelter and insufficiently |clad, the Indian women and_ chil- dren were cast adrift, Their hom re burned before their eyes. Bu: there was no surrender. The Indian warriors fought. In the battle four soldiers were killed and six seriou: \ly wounded. Reynolds became pani stricken, d abandoned the field in | wild haste. Such of the Indians as could secure mounts (their pony herd ‘had, been copiared) kept after the | retreating soldiers. They ‘recaptured jthe pony herd. Rejoining the main command under General Crook, the | retreat continued and the cam- paign finally abandoned. Meanwhile the Indians succeeded in capturing | Crook’s valuable herd of beef cattle, leaving bis weary and discouraged ‘oldiers to subsist on horseflesh al |the way to Fort Fetterman. Finally Fort Fetterman was reached wit ‘many of the soldiers badly frost- jbitten and otherwise - incapacitate Then, more trouble: some of Crook's ‘officers found themselves in disgrace and facing court martial on charges of cowardice a result of develop- ments in the fight with the Indian: Those being the facts, I feel that I have not over-stated the cade. There is no conflict with the records. T suspect that your main source jof information is to be found in the j account of the New York correspond- ent which you mention in referri ne to the extent of your research. That 's Life i jm appears in Whittal Custer. It is, however and rather i tic aper correspond- an officer with the expedi- in your effort to discredit the ou seem willing enough to accept the word of this one office: hs identity and standing are un- 3 but you decline to accept the testimon: many well known of- ficers of experience reputation when they bear witnéss to the out- Samed qualities of the Indian sol- pF (4) You argue that it was the Indian's fear of Terry's approaching four bundred, ii indent of any shortage mmunition in the In- dian camp, that decided the Indians to uae. ph she 26th. hate og mI mm you chose to re tl significant Tice that eight days pre- viously—that, is June 17—the In- dians under Crazy Horse, numbering haps less than balf total num- the Little Big Horn, had de- in three tone of finality equally refreshing. | material on the subject, and, by in- | times the number in the colum In view of tl fact, to be only one p on the 26th, and that—shortage of ammunition. Your contention that the approach of the Terry column, 400, 2,500 well to a precipitate re- surdity. lcLaughlin Quoted you quote Major McLaughlin. my good fortune to know Major McLaughlin rather intimately for more than thirty-five years. 1 have discussed with him, many times, the details of the Little Big Horn affair. His own personal opinion, as stated to me more than once, was that the Indians were sadly short of nmunition in that fight; and that, in addition, much ammunition was! wasted—needlessly, of course—in| celebration of the victory over} Custer. This is mentioned in Sol- diers of the Plains, p. 164. The word of Rain-in-the-Face is that a shortage of ammunition was the deciding factor in the Indians’ with- drawal. See American Mercury Mag- azine for November 1926, p. 342. Other facts brought out ii y, book go to show that a shortage of am- munition handicapped the Indians not only at the Little Big Horn but in most of the battles of any consequence between the Indian and the white | man, In the same number of the American Mercury Magazine, Bri . AL Terry shi which. I offer to you for what it worth, and I think it is worth much: “The truth is that we have never seriously worsted the In- dians in any conflict with equal numbers where they were all sup- plied with arms and auni- This is so, whether our e regular troops or ied frontiersmen. We em foemen of our steel.’ nder this heading (5) you say that I “forget that thou- sands of pages have been given | the Indian's side of the case. You | make that statement as though were solemn truth and beyond pute. The fact is that no book pur- porting to enter into a discussion of the Indian's case in like manner | has appeared previous to the present | volume. Permit me to correct an- other of your misstatements. neither been the fashion nor the| practice “for some years to present what is called ‘the Indian's side’” in| the manner in which I have attempt- ed to present it. On the contrar, so far as I am informed, no serio attempt has been made heretofore present n’s side” with view of giving hi mexact justice. | You say your complaint regarding | the book is that it does not content | itself with a “mere statement of the | case,” but that on every controvert- ed point it mukes assertions favor- able to the Indian. Will you please int out what possible excuse or justification there might be for book that “merely stated a case” | and refrained from incidental dis-| cussion? The mere fact that the! conclusions happen to favor the In- luint.’ However, I am not expecial- ly concerned with your criticism of the book itself. I am satisfied you; did not read it with sufficient care! to criticise it intelligently. The Chivington Affai | And you bring in the Chivington, affair as though I had discussed it great length. It is a subject 1) would consent to handle only with a| do not attempt to deal in my book. I merely repeat the expressed opinion of Generfl Miles and the. members of the In. dian Peace Commission (General Sherman and associates) concerning it. They regarded 4t,-and justly-re- garded it, as one of the blackest crimes that has disgraced the an- nals of American history. And_yo ‘otest that the hivington Ma: cre has another side, stoutly up- held by good men!” And “that when the Chivington story is rightly told it must be told in the light of all the facts;” and that in all such cases I appear to “give one side only, and that to a degree so extreme that | it cannot be accepted by scholars.” Save the mark. Scholars indeed! As to the story of this cowardly murderer, this destroyer of helpless women and children—evidently you been living all these years in blissful ignorance of the fact that the story was rightly and thoroughly told more than sixty years ago. The affair was investigated by the United States Government in response to a mightly wave of indignation that swept over the land, and there was produced a volume of testimony | which is now a part of the official records of the United States. If you |do not find it close at hand, for the sake of the neglected truth let me send you my copy for reading. It is a sad commentary that a man such ju, accustomed to review work, connection with Indian history hould know so little con- portant developments in y outstanding episode of! 0 that—sometime—you | may familiarize yourself with the re- | {port of the Indian Peace Commission | | (1868) and the report of the Sioux Commission (1876). Apparently both documents are strangers to you. You need them to get the right per- spective on the question of Indian rights and Indian wrongs. | ‘ou_conclude by objecting vi strenuously to my quoting 2,500 as the generally accepted number ot Indian warriors at the Little Big Horn. You “strongly dispute” my ‘ight to thee that number is “‘generally accepted.” \ | Even so, it 1s the most reliable figure extant. I do not quite get your point about the various “esti- mates” being regulated somewhat ac- cording as the estimator happens to be pro-Custer or anti-Custer. What bearing can the Custer question have on the question of numbers as BP piving to the Indians at the Little | lorn? it is quite true that some have the figures as high as 6,000. With just as much reason and justification they might have made the number 60,000 or 600,000. It is merely a ter of adding one or more ciphers. | Alt such “estimates” are utterly worthle: ral Terry's Estimate The one estimate, and the only one entitled to any consideration—and, by the way, the one which apparently | you never heard of, notwithstanding your prof of close familiarity with “most of the estimates that have been made”—is referred to in the official report of General Terry (1876) in which that officer quotes Captain Benteen and Major Reno as estimating the number at about 2,500. They made their estimate | ifter sieving. the departing Indians they trailed out toward the Big Horn Mountains late in the after- noon of June 26, 1876. If you insist Lind quarreling with that figure or testimon: have the privilege. I take | the subject. Very respectfully, P. E. BYRNE. A seeciel ket Bireou of Mises } fie Tate” Bates Mechanical ‘Spider’ Shoots New Cobwebs Instead of Bullets City, Cal., March 8—(AP) veloped a new Universi The movies have deadly weapon. utomatic an electric fan; th kil it ad a th ‘sp! so! ch electric | high fai vit |‘ cobwebby in The It looks like a cross between an pistol, a blunderbuss and but it is none of ese, It is a mechanical spider, and it lis time. The “cobweb machine” is call In 10 minutes it can jd centuries to the appearance of room. It “kills time” so fast it docs the work of millions of iders in a few minute: Mechanically, the new mething like a candy floss ma- ine. Power is furnished by an motor, which revolves at speed a shaft on which are a in and a magazine containing a iscous fluid which strings out into forms as it is sprayed to the path of the fan's breeze. device puts cobwebs on # device is quantity production basis. Prime Minister ~ ; Prime } jtheatre is almost a | agai in ati Jare cast out of h ti hi: Nt {fond of telling what a ¢ ‘he has to persuade Mrs. se som | “Macbeth.” Tt has | inte is he of ‘a turned upon him, and {ously and anxious! hi as to | Us all, Baldwin Enjoys Stage Thrillers rch 8 (P)—Britain' er when he goes to the boy all over The Right Honorable Stanley enjoys “thrillers” just as in his 61st year, ax he did ‘oungster at Harro s a play-goer Mr. Baldwin enters to the it of the occasion with 1 his rt, and the Chinese situ- jon and all other questions of state mind, for the me being at least. ‘This is one of is chief means of recreation I Baldwin and daughter Betty y accor im even to the hrillers. inis London, ini: Baldwin to she much prefers serious, such as melodrama a ething more Reads Program second after Mr. Baldwin his box he is wrapped up in the ‘ogram. s : st Finished with dwin glances out over the sea faces, most of them which are rt of nerv- watches the cur- pation of its rising. goes up, Mr. Bald- in is all attent othing escapes im. He leans over in his seat, and he gradually gets into the play jin in anti he bends more and more forward and re: sts his chin in the palm of one hand and then the other. st may laugh heartily. that, perhaps in a moment of tense- | ness on the ith pokes | that du When there is wit or a joke which rikes his funny bone, the Prime er straightens up--so that he If he doesn't do kes to nudge or if there man on his left or right, him with his point- er which move ring his political sp Gets the Point Quickly Mr. Baldwin grasps the good lines he ‘PAGE SEVEN in a jiffy and he likes to nudge who- ever is nearest. to make sure they get the point which interests him. In “thrillers” where the villain is about to escape, or the heroine is getting the wo: of it at the hands of the “foul fellow” Mr. Bal He ‘or the win almost stands up. and applauds underdog every’ time, enthusiastically when the fighter ¢omes out on top. Between ucts the Prime Minister goes out in the lobby to take a few draws on his pipe GHOULS EXHUME MISER Springfield, Mo.—Shortl, his death, 15 years Miler, aged eccentric, ensh into $10 gold pieces and secret- ed them in secret compartments in a coffin which he made himself. Re- cently a heap of fresh earth was no- ticed near the grave and the cof- tin was dug up by authorities. It was found that ghouls had reached the casket and removed several thou- sand dollars worth of gold. Nursery toys are being made from shrapnel shells in England. 80% of the Day's Impor- tant School Work Falls in 4 Morning Hours, Noted Educator Reveals AR you letting listless mornings, brought on ly by wrong breakfasts, handicap your child's schoo! work? Recent investigations, conducted in over 2,000 American schools and reveal 80% of the so-called ree as falling in the morning. jis percentage is con- firmed Prof. Willard, of North- western University, and other lead- ing educators. Thus Quaker Oats breakfasts, | providing the excellent food balance of protein, carbohydrates, vitamines and the “bulk” to make laxatives seldom needed are being urged as a duty of parents in protecting their children’s most important working hours. No other cereal grown com- pares in food balance. Serve every morning. Their rich Quaker flavor makes them sav and enticing ... delicious breakf: that yet “stand by” one. Get either Quick Quaker, which cooks in 2% to 5 minutes, or regular Quaker Oats today at your grocer’s. Quaker Oats Le of Appetite A DAN a 7 SIGNAL of a ‘99 te is a sure sign Fe falng oa binge nows 801 wroag —but what? Nine times out ten it is the stomach, bowels, kidneys or liver. When the di- gestive and eliminative organs are working rly, Nature mands food and one eats with a relish and feels well. Lyko, the great, I te has done minncles f r iiousente iling men and women. It contains the neces- ingredients to aid di stipation, and keep the k: healthy, active condition. today and get a bottle. you the merit of this wonderful tonic. ition, prevent con- ys and liver ina Go to your druggist Let one trial prove to con. b: tinue to suffer when relief is so near at hand? LYKO MEOICING je Gouwon Brings Trial Bottie Me. CO. Kansas oa ttid tis! bottle of Lybo. “t enclose 10e to help pay postage and Free Prizes De Laval and Dairy Day Friday, March 11, 1927 From 1 o’clock to 2:30 Capitol Theatre Two movie reels for your entertainment. We have arranged for a program which we know will be interesting to everyone milking cows. Sec us now and register for Free Prizes At our store, 401 Fourth street The holders of the lucky numbers will be given prizes as follows: 1st prize—42-piece China Dinner Set 2nd prize—1 Johnson’s Floor Polishing Outfit 8rd prize—Half Gallon Jewel Floor Varnish 4th prize—1 Gallon Standby Red Barn Paint 5th prize—1 Quart B. K. 6th prize—1 Toy Chair Set Now on display in our show windows Rules These prizes are given only to owners of cream separators of any make or kind, and in order to get the prize at the Capitol Theatre to claim ing. ' must be your prize at the se of draw- SPECIAL SALE DURING BISMARCK’S TRADE WEEK 30,000 rolls wallpaper at real bargain prices Bismarck Paint & Glass Co,