Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-08-04
TOO-OUA-STEE'S REJOINDER.
Pleads Not Guilty 10 Charge Of Using
Unwarranted Language.


that my friend, Hon. Robt. L.
Owen, has rendered me, through
the columns of your last issue, a
little courteous notification to the
effect that | am in error in refer
ence to the operations of the Cur
tbs law upon the matrimonial rela-
tions of the citizen people of this
territory. Now, | know Of no one
with whom | should more regret
to differ in opinion, or to whom |
would more willingly make ac-
acknowledgements for any offensive
blunder that | might make, than
to my distinguished friend. But
what if "Too-qua stee" should be
found TO be correct in his opinion?
Could his declaration of the truth
be properly regarded as ''inlem-
perate?" Would my friend have
his readers believe that "roo-qua-
stee" is speaking simply to give
vent to a rebellious volumAof
pent-up sentiment" That what
he says is not only "improvident"
but apparently the language
passion" and calculated to lob.
scure the ISSUE" instead of casting
light upon 1t?
Now, | assert here, the truth is
what | am after in this contro-
versy, and care not to what
length the pursuit may lead me,
provided only l am on the right
trail. The object of this little
communication is simply to take
my reckoning and ascertain
whether or not, have been going
wrong; whether in my denuncia-
tions of the Curtis law, l have
been 'lntemperate, F" drunk, crazy, :,
you know.
Section 30 of the act reads as
follows:
"That on and after the passage
of this act, the laws of the various
tribes or nations of Indians shall
not be enforced at law or in equity
by the courts of the United States
in the Indian Territory"
Section 81, again reads as fol.
lows: "That on the first day of
July, 1898, all tribal courts in the
Indian Territory shall be abol-
ished."
Now the first day of July, 1898,
bas slipped away; this law has
taken effect; our Indian courts are
no more.
We are, then, in this kind of
legal predicament: we have no In
dian or tribal laws; nor have we
any Indian or tribal courts, to en-
force such laws, if We had them;
and yet | think my friend will not
cOntrovert the proposition when |
assert that all the marriages, or
very nearly all, among the citizen
people OF this territory, are depen-
dent for their legitimacy upon
these Indian or tribal laws, which,
according TO the Curtis act, are
never in future to be enforced,
either in law or in equity, in the
United States courts OF this terri
tory. Now, suppose a case; that
the Legitimacy of my friends mar
rage should be, by chance, brought
into question in one of the United
States courts of this territory. To
sustain his case he would un-
doubtedly be driven to rely exclu.
sively upon the Indian, or tribal
law of his nation, regulating
marriages. " But the Curtis law
says in effect, that this tribal law
Regulating marriages shall not
be heard of in court. His predica-
ment would certainly be somewhat
embarrassing to say the least OF it.
Ii he was ever legally married, he
would not be allowed to show it,
because that would be enforcing
the Indian law. And yet it would
be that he had been indeed mar
RED, his matrimonial alliance be-
ing evidenced by the presence of a
charming wife, and a happy home
iull OF sweet little children.
Now, in view of this state OF
facts, the question which | wish to
ask my friend is this:
What in contemplation of law
and morals is the social status of a
couple, who have come together
and founded a family without be-
ing able to show that they were
ever legally married?
This is the condition to which
the Curtis law has reduced the ex-
cellent married people of all this