Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1900-07-19
THE CURTIS LAW.
Declared Unconstitutional by
Judge JnO. R. Thomas,

day handed down another impor'
tant decision, summarized as fol-
lows:
In a suit in equity brought By
Ellen Marlow and Jas. P. Marlow
for himself and as next friend oi
Ruth Marlow VS. J.George Wright,
United States Indian Inspector
for the FIVE civilized tribes, j.
Blair Shoenfelt, United States In
dian Agent for the five civilized
tribes, and John West, Indian po-
lioeman for the FIVE civilized tribes,
the allegations of the bill were in
substance that Ellen NARROW was
a citizen by blood Of the Creek ma
tion and had married Jas. P. Mar
low, a white man, in the Creek ma
tion in 1891. Ruth Marlow is
their minor daughter, about eight
years Of age; that Ellen Marlow
had a small improvement upon the
public domain at the time of her
marriage; that about seven and a
half years ago she and her hus.
band and child moved on this
place and had continued to inn
prove the same and had resided
on it continuously up to the pres.
ent time, and that the improve.
ment now embraces about 2OC
acres; that they had also improved
100 acres elsewhere in two separ.
ate tracts, which three pieces ol
land embracing about $50 acres,
more or less, constituted all the
land the Marlows had or con-
trolled in the Creek nation; that
two other citizens Of the Creek ma.
ton, Taylor Chissoe and Thomas
Marshall had gone before the
Dawes commission and attempted
to select as part Of the allotments
of their children some of the land
embraced in the larger improve.
ment held by the Marlows. that
since making this selection Mar
shall and Chissoe have applied to
the Indian agent 10 remove the
Marlows from that portion OF the
improvement which the selection
they had made Tapped over on;
that the Indian Policeman who
was made defendant with the in
spector and Indian agent, claimed
to have authority from the Indian
agent to remove the fences Of the
Marlows from that part of their
home place which fell within the
selections made by Chissoe and
Marshall and threatened that he
would, on the 10th day of July
proceed to remove their fences ac.
cordlngly. The plaintiffs sought
tn aid Of the court to restrain the
Indian Policeman, the Indian
agent and the Indian inspector,
and everyone else claiming to act
by their authority, from removing
any of their fences or improve
ments from the land in question.
The matter was heard before Judge
Thomas at 2 p. m, on the 10Th,
instant, and after hearing the In
dian agents statement of the mat
ter, in the course of which, he ad.
mitted to the court that he was
not undertaking specially to resist
the grant of the restraining order,
but simply wanted to lay the facts
before him.
A temporary injunction was is.
sued against the defendant, the
judge basing his decision IN the
matter both upon the unconstitu.
tionality Of those provisions in the
Curtis hill which purport to au-
thorize the taking away from In
dian citizens of their improve.
ments which they have made upon
the public domain under Creek
laws and with the consent of the
Greek nation, holding that an act
OF congress simply was not due
process of law in this case, and
that the Creek nation owning the
lands Of the tribe and having per-
mitted its citizens to erect these
improvements must first give its
consent TO such proceeding. But
he went further and held that IL
was not necessary to base the de-
cision upon the unconstitutionalily
of the law because the act, by it's
very terms, did not provide for
any such measures as were here
threatened. That concedipg it to
be valid of enforcement II was
necessary as conditioned preoed-
ent TO removing any citizen from
any improvement he had made,
or removing any Of his improve.
menis of the land they were on;
that il first be determined how
much land he was entitled to as
his share Of the lands OF the Creek
naffun nal - al. -. ...l..a A -