The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-04-15

view OF fast approaching allotment
and gives. without reserve. 10 the
linter-married non-citzen. 'all privil-
ges enjoyed by other citizens eXceut
[ participation in the annuities AMI
I final participation IN the lands This
act was intended 70 and did extend
Ito the intermarried nom-ciiizen the
right 10 Inherit under tribal law and
put him on the same footing nndef
that law with all other citizens oy'
cept as so aptly expressed bv the
/ learned Judge OF the United Siaies
4 Couu Tor the Western District o. u,e
/ Indian Territory IN the case OF Ed
ward Porter ct al " Eek p lfrook
that he shall not be counted IN max
/ ing up the great fraction which shall
express what share Oi the soil shall
1 belong to each citizen. that is ne shall
mot receive an allotment
la holding this We are not unmind.
lful OF the two cases decided by the
/ Supreme Court of the Creek Nation
set forth in fun In the very able brief
of Iowa Land y Trust Company esp
cially the Rogers case decided Oct
/ ~ 1850 cited on page 10, and whicn
/ passed upon the rights OF john q
/ Rogers an intermarried white man
under the Greek law. by virtue OF de-.
iscent cast by his wife ia 1881 The
court Ia that case held that he was
not an heir at law" of his WIFE, that
snCh must necessarily be o bona fide
/ citizen entitled to an the rights priv
ileges and immunities of our boil
/ polite" aud that no citizen by mar.
riage can acquire such risht' But
since that time. as shown by section
/ ! supra of the compilation - 20 ass
the Creek Cohncil passed az ACT eN
pressly providing that intermarrie
non-citizeus shall have the right %
/ live In this nation and enjoy all tue
/ privileges by other citizens, except T"
/ etc, we think IT. thus vested tpe
I lnter-marred non-citizen the pgefa-
qaisltes mentioned ia that decision 10
constitute an heir az law and ,lIas
/ Ben Reeves falls within the tsrms
/ therof IN this we are borne out by
! e. later decision OF tine Supreme Court
Of the Greek Nation This case Is
quoted in fnll on page 10 Gf the rec
lord II was decided by that court ia
/ 1898, only q short time after Section
/ ]. supra, was pat in compilation be-
came law, and passed upon the
rights of an intermarried non eit zen
to inherit from his citizen wife whO
had died in 1891 II appears in that
case that Section ] was under c,t-
struction by the Supre!ae Court OF
The Greek Nation and was certainly su
BY he United States Circuit Court Df
4 Appeals, whore the case was after
wards tried. The opinion Of the ST..
preme Court of the Crek Nation Ia
that case relative TO Edward Gibson
finds that he be not q bona nde Gift
zen of the NJ ~ (Muskogee Nation)
and simply entitled TO his own prou.
erty, and an heirs part OF The Julia
Gibson estate: therefore dismiss the
case for want of jurisdiction of Ell
ward Gibson This controversy. 10
he sure. was over personal property
but the construction was made By
that court in the face of impendinn
ALLOTMENT, which came shortly follow
ing the creation OF the Dawes Com
mission IN 1893 and was moi doubt
made with full knowledge of its far
reaching effect And furthermore
when IN the original agreement TIC
Greek people said that the allotment
made hereunder should descend IN
der the laws OF descent and disttibu
tion of the Greek Nation, il necessar
lily follows thai they meant that ther
lin the intermarried non-citizen hus
band should receive out OF his ci izer
wifes allotment an heirs part under
section / supra. pursuant to the RAJ
ing of the Supreme Court Of the i'iL,
in The Gibson case.
Il is well settled that:
whenever Congress II
legislating for the District of Colun
bia or the Territories has borrowe'
from Ia statutes of a State provis
ions which had received IN that Stat
Q known and settled construction be
fore their enactment By Congress tha
construction must be deemed to ha,,
been adopted by courts together VIII
/ the text which il expounded and th'
provisions must be construed as tie.
were understood al ihe Uihe in th-
state (2G Am. q Eng Eh of Law
lp 1922
, And as there Is no reason why tlu
/ laws of the Creek Nation and the d
/ cisions of It's Supreme Court shoul,
, le placed upon different footini
from those Of any other State or Ter
ritory of the Union (Mackey ct al ,
Coke. rs How 1909 we are OF Opinion
thar when Congress, by The terms 0
the original agreement adopted m
+ laws Of descent and distribution OF tn
{ Greek Nation. supra. Il, at the same
time adopted The construction place
thereon prior thereto by the Supreme
y Court OF that Nation, and that We ar
. bound by that construction
But that decision simply holds ihu
he Is entitled 10 an heirs part an
IL yet remains for MS to determine,
) we can, what Is meant By an heir
e part
= Since Section 8. supra, was not IN
! tended. then. at tie Time ID was eI
. acted, to cover lntermarried nou-cit
: zens but was made 10 do so by SEE
: tion 1. supra. and The decision OF th
Supreme Court OF the Creek NatiOi
let ms FIRST get Whist light we can froi
the lace of these sections construe
: with Section 6. before attempting il
y final construction. Ia other words },
us look TO the face of an three vii
I q view of constituting them all A
eeiher Constituting the word heir
lof heirs as used In Section s in Il