Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1915-01-31

the allotment Of Minnie Solander an
enrolled mixed blood Creek. She died
In October 1899, before her allot-
ment had been selected She was
survived by daughter, Hettie Sol
ander, and her husband, George Sol
andor, Il non-citiZen OF the Creek ma
ton. Her child died unmarried and
without Issue in November, 1899. An
allotment was made on behalf Of her
heirs on December 4, 1901, under the
second paragraph Of Section 2S OF the
original Creek allotment. The orig
inal Creek agreement provided that
such allotments shall descend to the
heirs Of the deceased member accord
ing TO the laws Of descent and dis
tribuuOn OF the Creek nation. The
Creek laws provide that non-citizen
heirs shall not participate in the final
division OF the tribal lands. 1t was
therefore contended that George A.
Solander the surviving non citizen
husband OF Minnie Solander, de-
ceased. was not an heir within the
meaning OF the Creek law, and con
sequently inherited no part OF this al
lOtment.
The supreme court Of the United
States held that George A. Solander
was entitled to the entire allotment.
The court said
The Opinion.
That the intermarried non-citiZen
could inherit under the tribal laws
appears to have been the conclusion
reached In an unreported case (Por-
ter " BROOKE in the United States
court for the Western District OF the
indian Territory, and this ruling was
followed by the supreme court Of the
state OF Oklahoma in the case of de
ct al. V. Iowa Land q
Trust Co, 20 Okla 6S7. 1t was held
that a non-Citizen husband, while by
reason of the fact of his nOn-mem-
bership he was not to be counted in
determining OF the fact of his nom
he was not to be counted
in determining the distributiye shares
for the purpose OF allotment to. or in
the right Of enrolled members of the
tribe, was entitled under the tribal
laws to take an heirs part of the
lands which had been allotted to his
deceased wife's citizen wife. In that
case the descent was controlled by
the provision of section Z of the Orig |
Inal Creek Agreement, that the land |
allotted should descend to the heirs |
Of the allottee according to the laws
Of descent and distribution of the |
Creek Nation, the same expression !
nat Is u6tu III 6ttNlOu 90
This decision as to the right of in
-ermarried non-Citizens to inherit has |
been repeatedly followed and has be- |
come a rule Of property which, rec
Dgnizing the Importance of the Sc
2urity of titles, we should not dis
.urb unless it is clearly wrong. But
80 far from the case being one OF
error it is apparent from the
review of their provisions that the
most that can be said is that the
Creek laws were uncertain and am
Diguous and that their proper con
struction as an original question
might be regarded as doubtful. 1t is
rue. of course, as urged by the plain
.iff in error, that we are not deal
ng with a statute of a state, the 4
meaning of which is necessarily set
led by the state court. but even
where we have undoubted right of
review we ought not to overturn, in
A cast at most debatable, local rule
IF construction which for years has
governed transfers Of property See
Nadal V. May, 233 L. S. 447, 454."