Commissioner Parker on Trial

In 1869, a New York Times article announced the formal induction of Ely S. Parker to his post as Commissioner of Indian Affairs: "The clerks and Attaches of the Bureau were then presented and received by General Parker. He informed them that no immediate changes would be made because there were several more important matters which demanded his early attention, but at no distant day he would devote himself to reorganization of the Bureau, when the revision of the clerical force might be expected."

"Ely Parker would try (he failed, but he would try) to reorganize one of the more corrupt administrations in all the history of our corrupt governments. The Indian Ring was profoundly corrupt; the agents of the government in passing out treaty goods and allowances to Native peoples, everywhere, but especially in the west, gave corruption a whole new and dreadful dimension. He inherited this, tried to change this."

Stephen Saunders Webb, Ph.D.
Maxwell School, Syracuse University

Prior to Grant's administration, the agents and superintendents of the Indian Affairs office were political appointees; competition for the modestly-paid positions fed beliefs of widespread graft and theft from Indian nations. The Peace Policy terminated the political system; the positions were instead proffered to members of the Quaker religion and Army officers, men who Parker and Grant felt could create an honest administration. Then a Board of Indian Commissioners was appointed to oversee the agencies, identify and eliminate dishonest practices, and generally advise the government on its Indian policies.

"The first Chairman of that board was a man named William Welsh, a prominent Episcopal layman. Welsh thought that the board should have more power than it did, and when Ely Parker demonstrated that the ultimate power really resided in the Commissioner's office, Welsh resigned."

William Armstrong
Parker Biographer

But Welsh remained active behind the scenes, and would engineer Commissioner Parker's undoing. William Armstrong called Welsh a "very peculiar person, very suspicious person, saw corruption everywhere and became convinced that Parker was part of the so-called Indian Ring." Perhaps still bearing a grudge against Parker, Welsh once told an acquaintance that the Commissioner was "the representative of a race only one generation from barbarism, and did not think that he should be expected to be able to withstand the inducements of parties who were his superiors in matters of business."

By December 1870, Welsh's investigation of Ely Parker went public. In a letter published in Washington newspapers, Welsh accused Parker of malfeasance in office. Welsh had investigated a June 1870 delivery of beef and flour to Indians on the Missouri River, and had concluded that the supplies weren't needed, and weren't approved by the Board of Indian Commissioners. He accused Parker of deliberately paying too much for the beef, so that he could share in illegal profits estimated at $250,000.

Welsh filed 13 counts of misconduct against Parker with the House of Representatives, charges which Ely denied in a letter of rebuttal that concluded with: "Your committee will observe, upon reading the charges numbered from one to thirteen inclusive, that in some cases they contain statements of facts of which I have no knowledge; that they abound in inferences of the person making them which do not necessarily follow from the facts themselves; that they cover a wide range of inquiry, not only into particular transactions, but the general policy of the Indian Office; that they are often vague and uncertain in allegations of the facts, but of this I care little. There are substantial averments which concern me personally and officially, and all such I stand ready to answer."

However, when hearings before the House Committee on Appropriations began, Parker took to his bed, physically incapacitated by the scandalous nature of the charges. His defense was run by his good friend and attorney Norton Chipman, who had established his reputation as the trial prosecutor of the Confederate prison camp at Andersonville. Chipman's defense of Parker was passionate and comprehensive; his arguments and presentation of evidence refuted nearly all the charges. Chipman also launched a scathing attack on William Welsh and the almost pathological lengths he went to in his investigation of Ely Parker: "Certainly whatever knowledge that persistent, patient and searching inquiry could produce, will be found here. The prosecutor, Mr. Welsh, has been denied no facility in any quarter, official or otherwise, which would lead to the discovery of any important fact connected with the charges. He has had access to the files and records of all the departments and bureaus of the government, and has used this privilege freely. He has even caused to be brought before the committee the private bank account of at least one person with whom he suspected General Parker may have been in collusion. And I do not doubt that the same zeal which led him to the examination of this bank account, has also led him to make the same fruitless search with regard to the private bank account of General Parker elsewhere."

Eventually, Ely Parker was compelled from his sick bed to testify before the committee. He also filed the following communication with the committee's chairman.

"Mr. Chairman: In asking you to consider the suggestions submitted by my friend and counsel in this investigation, General Chipman, it is proper, perhaps, that I should say a word myself. I will not attempt to go over the testimony, as that has been done by my friend, nor could I do so with any satisfaction myself, or in any way to aid your committee, for I have not been able to attend the investigation, during its progress, and am not familiar enough with the facts of record to assist you in your examination of it. I do not know either, that I can now add anything to what I have said under oath in reply to questions asked me by the committee, and which I suppose were intended to cover the whole ground of this investigation.

When I entered upon the discharge of the duties of my office, I knew how sensitive the public were with regard to the administration of our Indian affairs. I knew, too, the solicitude with which Congress has always regarded that bureau of our Government service, and firmly resolved that I would administer the office to the best of my ability, and in such a manner that no taint of dishonor, at least, should ever attach to my conduct.

To what extent my ability has proved equal to the duties devolved upon me, it is not becoming for me to speak. I know that I have spared no pains, no sacrifice of personal convenience and pleasure, to discharge my whole duty faithfully. I do not claim that I have made no mistakes, for that is more, but, Mr. Chairman, I do say, and I speak it in a solemn a manner as I am capable, and to this extent I have already sworn, that I have never profited pecuniarily, or indeed otherwise by any transaction in my official capacity while I have been serving as Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

I cannot know in advance how you will regard the various matters which have been made the subject of your investigation, as they affect my personal honor and official integrity; but whether they are sufficiently explained by the facts in the record or not, no view which you may take of them can change the knowledge within my own breast, that I have never sought to defraud the Government of one penny, or have knowingly lent my aid to others with that view. There is not to be found anywhere in connection with this trial - if I make speak of it as a trial - a single transaction about which I had at the time, or until Mr. Welsh published his letter of December last, the slightest suspicion that my conduct would be inquired into. All of my official acts now before your committee, were performed in the usual routine of my official duties. I gave them no further thought afterwards than such as would naturally come up in the mind of a public officer in the casual review of his past administration.

When I was, in January, suddenly called upon to explain transactions of my office, six months previous, I could only rely for explanation upon such records as happened to remain in my office, and upon such facts as I could from other sources, bring to the attention of the committee. As to the effect of these records and facts, you are to be the judges, and I leave them with you in the full belief that you will weigh them well before you condemn my action.

If human testimony is to be believed, and if my sworn statements of other with whom I am suspected of being in complicity are to be credited, I think I may safely leave the question of my personal honor in your hands. As to the wisdom of any particular act of mine into which you have been examining, of course your judgement and mine may differ, and as to this I can only rest upon the circumstances surrounding me at the time, and the facts in the record, tending to show whether I acted wisely or not.

You must admit, Mr. Chairman, that the matter is one of great moment to me, and while I have no right to ask at your hands any report other than that which may be the result of your own convictions, I think I have the right to ask that at the time you make it to the House of Representatives, you will also state all the material facts upon which your conclusions should rest. I do not shrink from any responsibility which I have incurred, or its just consequences, and I only ask that that body which ultimately determines upon the result of the investigation, shall have that full knowledge of my conduct which will enable them to form a correct judgement in a matter of such great importance to me."

E.S. Parker

The committee issued its findings in the winter of 1871: "To the committee, the testimony shows irregularities, neglect and incompetency, and, in some instances, a departure from the express provisions of law for the regulation of Indian expenditures, and in the management of affairs in the Indian Department. But your committee have not found evidence of fraud or corruption on the part of the Indian Commissioner. With much to criticize and condemn, arising partly from errors of judgement in the construction of statutes passed to insure economy and faithfulness in administration, we have no evidence of any pecuniary or personal advantage sought or derived by the Commissioner, or anyone connected with his Bureau."

"But at the same time, Congress turned around and passed a law that gave the board of Indian commissioners more power than it had before. That they were to have joint supervision with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs over every expenditure of the office. And that act, taking away Parker's own responsibility, and the hurt of those charges, led Parker to give it all up. He had been in office only two years and fairly successful two years. Helped establish this Peace Policy of Grant's, and to some extent, calmed things down in the west. But Parker could not in good conscience continue in that position, and resigned."

William Armstrong
Parker Biographer

Parker said he could not in justice, "continue to hold the ambiguous position I now occupy as Commissioner of Indian Affairs," and resigned effective August 1, 1871. President Grant did not try to talk him out of it, instead offering Parker a letter of agreement. Their 11-year friendship was all but over when Ely left Washington.

"There were a few meetings….Parker had transcribed the terms of surrender at Appomattox, and he had kept one of the flimsy manifold copies that Grant had drafted the terms. And I think in the 1870s he looked Grant up, and asked Grant to endorse that it was, in fact, authentic, which Grant did. On another occasion, Grant had been on a world tour and the staff went to see Grant when he came back. And then finally when Grant was dying of cancer, Parker tried to see him. Saw his son; was not able to see Grant. I don't know if he was being rebuffed. It might have been that Grant simply was physically not able to see him.

"I don't know why the rift between the two men. Their closeness certainly evaporated after Washington. Parker at one point blamed Mrs. Grant; now this was not in public, this was in private conversations; he blamed her for her love of wealth and its effect on her husband. Publicly, he always expressed loyalty to Grant, he wouldn't get into controversies; but privately I think he felt that Grant had gradually abandoned his old staff."

William Armstrong
Parker Biographer

"I think the explanation is a military one. Grant's original staff was professional people and old friends from Galena: essentially civilians and members of the U.S. volunteers. When Grant becomes the General of the Armies of the Potomac, he brings in a professional staff of West Pointers. And ever afterwards, Parker says, Grant wanted to please the professionals who had previously looked down on him as a bad performer at the academy, and a drunk, and an incompetent officer. As Parker says, "It was West Pointers who ruined us all." His own appointment as military secretary was seen as an enormous victory of the old staff over the new, for the volunteers staff over the professionals. Parker tells us that got even worse in the Grant Presidency. That Grant's desire to please the professional soldiers, the West Pointers, led him to denigrate those who were not of that tradition.

Secondly he says Grant himself had no talent for politics, and at the same time had enormous need for, and love of, money -- "filthy lucre", Parker called it. And that those two things combined to bring him down. Grant was politically adept at covering his tracks, and he was corrupt. And hence, his own fear of political scandal, and his own personal corruption, tends to separate him from people like Parker, at least during the Presidency."

Stephen Saunders Webb, Ph.D.
Maxwell School, Syracuse University