Malfeasance or Indirection? Administration of the California Indian Superintendency's Business Affairs

Abstract

In discussing nineteenth century Indian policy, historians are seemingly fascinated by the inherent dynamics of its formation and determination. Significant studies along these lines have been authored by Reginald Horsman, James Malin, Loring Benson Priest, Henry Fritz, Robert Winston Mardock and Francis Paul Průcha.1 But even Průcha admits that this emphasis has resulted in the gross neglect of an equally important aspect of policy administrative execution. The Office of Indian Affairs, superintendency and agency operations, and local fiscal affairs all need a more thorough examination. In spite of the lack of evidence which these studies would provide, unscrupulous agents, bungling bureaucrats and wide-spread corruption characterize, in the minds of laymen and historians alike, the administration of nineteenth century Indian affairs. It has become increasingly evident to thoughtful historians of government-Indian relations, such as Průcha and William E. Unrau, that a redressing of the balance is clearly in order.2 A study of the California superintendency's fiscal affairs is one move in that direction.3 On the premise that fiscal administration played a crucial role in the implementation of Indian policy on the local level, a study of fiscal management poses certain fundamental questions requiring an answer. First, how well were the business affairs of the superintendency managed? Second, what were the reasons for either good or poor administration? Third, did official misconduct (malfeasance) or bureau indirection contribute to poor management? Fourth, were there more basic reasons for inadequate administration?