The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-22

I: Is Declared Legal By Judge
Mcbride at Mount Vernon.
CHINESE PREFER PORTLAND.
Coutssbaad Coolies 1hisk II 10 xssser
60 LAND Theye-fnspsetsr Cehisass's
N.ssion 20 British Columbia.

.or-r -rr-nr, MAY 2i--fSpeciai- =
Judge Mcbride has rendered has decision
In the famous Jonn 4. Wi!Dar estate con-
test wherein Wi.burs Indian heirs asked
for letters Of administration. In his de-
e!sior, Judge Mcbride did not indulge the
humorous mood which seszet him last
March when he delivered himself Of his
famous findings 81 fart" in this same
case He rendered . digniaed decision
an! found tina. 10 the autumn OF isji John
4. Wilbnr and the Indian woman now
knoxn rs Kitty faIlanstes were married
on the swinoH!sh reservation according
- the laws and customs in force among
tins tribe at that time; tha, Nifty Falians-
Ice and her two sons. John David "i.hHr
and Charlie Wilbnr. are the sole heirs os
The deceased; tha; AZ the time Wilbur
married Sarah Wilcox he was incompetent
TO contract said marriage for which Fea-
son the marriage. Is void. In accordance
with tho findings he issued letters OF ad-
minissration 10 q. u. Bingham.
No case has ever excited 10 much local
interest as this one has. and certainly fes
cases have caused ~ much general COM
fucnt all over the country. The property
OF the deceased 10 located near sEagst City,
being fine ranch now in the possession
Of Wilbur's second wife, white woman.
and ~ valued At $1,000 Million Il Houser.
attorneys for Mrs. Wilbur. have appealed
the case to the supreme court and the case
will not have final decision until! II Is
heard in the United States supreme court.
The final decision will establish a rrece-
dent In this state.
Speaking OF the case George NJ. Sinclair,
OF Sinclair AZ smith, attorneys for the
Indian heirs, said:
Our contention was not that II was common
Law marriage. but that IL was foreign mar
rage. having been contracted on an Indian re
efvasson according To the Indian customs and
without the jurisdiction of state laws. None OF
the cases heretofore decided by The supreme
court have passed upon the validity OF Indian
marriages. Ia casa recently decided, Kelley
vs. kiisap county. the only question H.
VOWED was - 60 the validity OF COIL
mon law marriage. Following the rule laid
down In re McIaughins estate, 4 Wash.,
80 tho court held that such marriages were
void. There WIS no question rs To recognizing
or rcpudiating the marriage recognized by the
Indians themselves valid. Some OF the
courts. and. indeed, the supreme court OF the
United states seem TO apply TO the indians in
thsir righsa Of person aud property the doctrine
OF extraordinarily to an extent enioved BY am
bAssAdors, ministers aud attaches Of legations,
and hold that the rights ana privileges enjoyed
by treaty Indians attach 70 the person and not
merely TO the reservation In thls case all the
auhosites are agreed that no state. much loss
. territorial government carved out OF the Wild
lands Of the West. could extend any jurisd,o-
ton owe, Indians, their person and property
rights. whilc living on q reservation. The
organic act OF all territories established in THAT
IL known ~ the Louisiana purchase expressly
reserves 10 congress the right 70 icgislstc con-
corning Indian affairs. even crimea Our coz
teutou IL that the marriage laws OF the territory
Of Washington. a. they existed In 1867. In 50 far
~ thw pretended TO regulate and control lu-
dian mArriagcs. are void.