The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-27
THE MATTHIAS HEIRS
Ths osa os@.si@e - csm@e~ A~~ Me-.
sa.s. Rsl.sa - asif
nr~~d eIaanazaG

The Argument ih ths case - hstecsa
Lena Graham against Charles Matthias.
contest tor the estate ~ ihe late fr~nNiin
Matthias. in which the vAiidity Of ths dead
mans marriage with an Indian ~omAn =
involved wss concluded IN the United
States court before Judge Hantord yestsr-
day. and the ease taken under advisemenL
The estate aggregates about 5000. o.
which SIS. 600 Is in cash. $500 IN fennsyi-
vania real estate and the remainder IN 80
attic property. The suit has aroused
much interest among pioEeers on account
of the questions in regard TO the marriage
law which are involved. the complainant
claiming to be Matthias Legitimate daugh-
ter.
HFranklin Matthias came TO Seattle In
1852. and in 1857, it is claimed by the COM
plant. marriage ceremony. under the
Indian custom and in the presence OF
three Indians who are witnesses IN the
case, took place between Matthias and an
Indian woman known as Peggy Curly. the
niece of an old Indian caiei known al that
time as Chief Curly. He was carpenter
by trade, and lived in house on the pres
emit site Of the Squire Latimer building,
where, il is claimed by the defendant, the
marriage ceremony took place, and In De-
cember, 1859, the complainant was born.
Sixteen witnesses were called TO show that
Matthias and Peggy were living together
at the birth of the complainant. and con-
| tinued to 90 so until two years afterwards,
when their marriage relations ceased. The
woman states that Matthias then Joined
an alliance with White River Jennie, and
that her mother went To the fire
side of Chris Scheuerman. and after
wards bore to him family of niEe children.
Photographs of Matthias and the COM
plainant have been introduced. and are
said to bear somewhat OF family resem-
blance. The testimony has shown that
Matthias and Peggy had lived together.
but the dates could not be sworn to posi-
lively. Several of the witnesses testified
as TO the affection which Matthias showed
toward the girl. who was prepossessing.
and that he appeared to be proud OF her.
The complainant states that she was al
ways taught by her Indian mother to
avoid Matthias and that she was system
aticaily schooled to fear him.
Matthias died in 1891 and under this
state of facts the plaintiff claims that she
Is his legitimate child, by virtue of good
ana valid marriage between the parents.
contracted at time when this was Indian
country and Indian customs prevailed
here; also that shels the issue of valid
common law marriage, contracted at
time when common law marriages were
recognized in Washington territory. On
this contention the plaintiff states that the
Federal courts are not bound by the de-
cision of the supreme court against
the validity of common law marriages, for
the reason that long prior To any such de-
cision the supreme court of the United
States, which then had peculiar iurisdic-
ton to announce the law Tor the territory.
had decided, in the case of Meister VS..
Moore, that a common law marriage was
valid.
The argument for the complainant was
closed by II. ii. Lindsay yesterday after
noon. He cited large number of cases
from the supreme court of the United
States upholding his contention as TO the
woman's legitimacy, and said she also
claimed to be legitimate under the several
acts passed by the territorial legislature
lsgitimatizing the offspring of all mar
riages declared null at law. These several
acts were passed in 1850, 1868 and 1866.
The claim to legitimacy is also made un-
der the territorial marriage act OF 1854.
which provided that all children born Of
persons living AID cohabiting together as
man and wife shall for all purposes be
legitimate. 1t was also claimed that legit-
imacy, when it once attaches, is q
vested aud property right of
which no statute and no decision
of a court can diyest any citizen.
and hence that Federal question is in
this regard involved in the trial of the
suit and. that being the case, that the
Federal courts must decide the question
involved upon their own independent
| Judgment regardless of the decision OF the
state courts. always giving the opinion of
the state court that due consideration to
which il Is entitled.
Another important question, Mr.. Lind
say said. was whether this was Indian
/ country" at the time OF the questioned
| marriage ceremony In 1887, the Indian
title or right OF possession not having
been extingnished by treaty with the gov
| eminent until 1889
When Job T.. Lyon concluded his argu-
ment for the defense last Saturday be
made q strong attack upon the character
| and general reputation and conduct of the
| mother of the complainant and Mr.. Lind
say replied 10 them. severely scoring some
/ OF the witnesses against the woman.