Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not desire to go into the argument of this question at length tQ day; I will say but a few things. The Senfrom Ohio and the ComFinance cannot certainly have had an opportunity to consider this question as those gentlemen have whose special business and duty it has been to look into our Indian affairs. I admit in the out set that there are some considerations which would incline the judgment to place the super intendency of Indian affairs under the control of the War Dept. At the same time there are other, and in my judgment stronger, considerations why it should he kept distinct from the War Dept. I know, sir, that it is sometimes urged that there is a 'ealousy between the employees of the Indian urcau and the officers of the Army. I admit it. I admit that there is sometimesa conflict of opinion and apparentlya conflict of jurisdiction, that they are exceedingly jealous of each other." But, sir, so far fronithat jeal ousy working to the disadvantage of the' government it works rather to its advantage. The fact that there are 2 sets of officers in the Indian country jealous of and watching each other, is both for the good of the Indians and for the good of the Government. As to the manner in which these Indian wars arise, of course I cannot now go at length into a detail of their history to show how they have arisen. It is enough to say that they sometimes arise from a sudden conflict between the whites and the Indians. An Indian may commit some depredation upon the whites in the stealing of their cattle, which provokes at once retaliation, and a war begins; or, on otheroccasions, it arises from depredations committed by whites upon the Indians. And, sir, Iventnre to say, upon the best information which I have been enabled to obtain, that the Indian wars have, in 9 cases in ten, arisen from the depredations or the wrongs committed by the whites upon' the Indians, and not by the Indians upon the whites. My friend on my right [Mr. BROWN] observes it is not by the Army. how,let me call some facts to my friend's recollection. I do not charge upon the Army greater mistakes than I would c arge upon any other men in the same circumstances; but I do charge that the great est Indian wars that have occurred within the last 20 years may be traced directly to the Army and to the blunders of officers in command. I refer to the great Sioux war which began in 1852, and continued until General Harncy was called to the field and punished the nation very severely. How did that war commence? It commenced in this way: the plains had been perfectly peaceful until then; some Mormons were driving their cattle to ward Salt Lake, and near Fort Laramie, the Indians being gathered together waiting in the neighborhood of the military post, one of the tribe killed one of the animals belonging to those Mormon emigrants; the lieutenant in command of the fort at once sent out a man in command of 20 men, and in the presence of the Indian camp demanded that this Indian must be surrendered or he would fire upon them. The Indians said, “ We are willing to pay for this animal; we will pay you in buffalo robes or butfalo skins.” But no, he demanded the instant surrender of the man who had committed the offense. The Indians refused to deliver him up, and he ordered his men to fire. They fired upon the Sioux warriors and Sioux Indians there assembled, and in 20 minutes he and his whole party were killed and scalled. That began I; e Sioux war of 1852.