The sun., 1894-05-04
WHAT rs AN INDIANS
The Rights or the Mixed Biooas TO Ratisns
sud to q share In T-ibai Property.


The Rights OF the Mixed Biood. 10 Rstisrs
s-a to . share In Tribai Property.
WASHINGTON. May 2-The decision recently
reached by Attorney General 0lnsy. In opposi-
tion, 1t is understood. to that Of Secretary
Hoke Smith, on the rights Of mixed bloods.
involves an interesting question as to the
status OF Indian children.
The case was one in which Black Tomahawk.
. full blood Sioux. and Mrs. Jane Z. wsldron.
q woman OF mixed Sioux Indian and white
blood. both claimed q specific tract OF land as
their sllotmen under section 13 Of the act OF
March 2. 1889. to divide portion of the res
ervation OF the Sioux nation Of Indians In Da-
kota into separate tsreservations" This section
declared that any Indian entitled to rations
and snpuities. but residing upon any portion
OF the reservation not included In the separate
reservations established by the act, might,
within year after being notified OF his right
OF option. record his choice at the agency to
which he belonged and thereupon have the
allotment TO which he would be otherwise en-
titled on one OF said separate reservations" !"
thus provided for
Mrs. Jane +. Waldron, . quarter blood San
tee. under this provision. took up her resi-
dence on q tract near the town Of Pierre. July
4. 1899. and Black Tomahawk established
and July 80 following. On Sept 10. 1890. Mrs.
waldron recorded her selection at the Chey-
enns River Agency. and on Oct Black Toma-
hawk recorded his at tho same agency. The
dispute as to ownership having been carried
up to Secretary Noble. the Assistant Attorney
General decided that Mrs Waldron WAS not an
Indian at all. even for the purpose OF land
allotment. and that she was not entitled to re-
ceive rations and annuities. 1t appeared that
her mother was a Sioux Indian. but her father
was white man. and tho daughter had also
married . white man. Tho father had for
years supported his family without reference
to tho origin OF his WIFE, but having met with
business reverses. moved back upon the In
dian reservation. whore the family had been
registered as entitled to receive rations. and
in that way the daughter. Mrs. Waldron. had
made her claim to the tract.
The Assistant Attorney-General declared
fsa a% ns the he y ns
sons follows the condition OF the father" and
that this rule prevails In determining the
zen Of the United States. and an Indian woman
his wife" Such children are not Indians. and
s the act Of iss | Secretary % = SoGie coneSrTsd i Ia
this decision. but 1t stirred up n very impor-
tant opposition and he subsequently, recalled
through his Term and descended to his sue:
with Mr. Noble but. At all events. submitted
the matter to the new Attorney General.
of recent % Years. relating to the lands and funds
OF Indian tribes. The decision Just spoken OF
would reverse the existing status Of a large
Indians. with rights to a share In tribal prop
erty. tom missioner Morgan very strongly
srns He held that 90 far as sls Hss
eoncerned. an indian is one who by right Of
~ n mr. In hA m nm mr.
recognized By the .Government and the court.
Gosernmens !ass "a. sssal,s$ the i 1IsSs .1S e
there srsEs can be pefSb no doSb. that % wRsrs white
men have married members OF q tribe
the authorities OF the tribe have treated the
have held that such children gould be treated
as citizens for the purrose OF being punished
respected the right BY Inheritance to tribal
property which the tribe itself acknowledged
The reason is that although among civ
ilized nations descent Is through the father.
among the North American Indians the line
the present day. is through tho mother. and In
many instances the wife, and not the husband.
Is rsSogniIed as the head Of the faTily; ~ OitSP
wife to his home. he goes to hers and becomes
absorbed In her family. But even among tribes
BILE survivals OF mothers right as II is called
by some: for example. the Dakota mother-in-
law leyen among the Santees In 1871 can take
her dS1ghsr from the And give her
thsr referred to the status OF Indian women
married to citizens under the act OF Feb 10.
lS55 showi ng that they are TO be deemed citi-
zens only when they might themselves be law
fully naturallzed. Again, In dealing with the
Indians the Government has repsat edly recog-
nized tho rights OF mixed bloods to act as
members OF the tribe:
These acts OF the sGovernment-Aeceptanee OF their
signatures to agreements Tenquishing rights IN lands
m snt with an Indian tribs-hAye nxsd the status OF
bloods as Indians in the sense that they have an
they ssvsTaly claim to belong To decide at this time
IhA such mixed boods not Indians, so that they
witch they claim and are recognized 90 be members
would unsstts and sndAnger the titles to much Of the
Ands thAt have been TsIinqushsd by Indian tribes
and patented TO citizens Of the United States
The Attorney General. on his. part. calls at
tention to the fact that the Allotment act OF
ss89 depends for Its validity upon the consent
Of the Indians, and accordingly the rights
conferred By the treaty must be given 10 those
nation. Tho question" he SAYS. therefore.
v hether any person is or ts not an Indian. within
.he meaning OF this agreement, Is 10 be deter
mined. In my opinion, not by the common law.
hose laws or usages am not informed Pre-
n person apparently OF mixed
blood residing upon a reservation and claim
ing 10 DO an Indian, is, In fact an Indian"
one slide or the other. il seems very clear that
10 abide by the decision OF allowing descent
through the mother to confer property rights
IN accordance with Indian customs would
avoid great deal Of trouble and an uphsaval
1i subsisting relations The question appears
n other classes OF cases besides that OF Black
and Mrs. Waldron. and Is involved
n many agreements between the Government