| OCR Text |
Show REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIBS. 35 The old English common law, which makes the father the ControIling factor md determines relationship through him, does not seem applicable to the condition of things such as is found among the Americam Indians, where themother, and not the father, is the chief factor. Seventh. Ntatua of Indian womennawied to citizens of the United States.-Underdate of February 10,1855, an act of Congress was approved (10 Stats., 604) which pro-vides that an^ woman who is now or may hereafter be manied toa citizen of the CnitvdSrotcs, and whomight herscli be ln\vfully nnturali~rda,L :lll bedreu~edI t ~r ) r l f a citizen." AR The rourfo ho\e dre1nrr.d rhat in Indiauc.>n nut I ~~c~ ~ ~ ~ u t aunldivrre d onr e-e neralnaturalizationl~w( 6th Federal Renorter.. 256').. anIndian womanunderthe statute just quoted could not by marriage with a oitizen of the United States he-come a, citizen herself. By the act of August 9, 1888 (2.5 Stats., 392), Congress de-e l a ~ . dth a t any Indian woman (except amember of theFive CivilizedTribes) wh? should thereafter marry s, citizen of the United States should he deemed B eitieen herself by virtue of such marriage, hut that in thus becoming a citizen she should in no way forfeit any of her rights to an interest in the pro$erty of her tribe. Aoaording to this an Indian woman married to a citizen of the United Statesprior to Aucust 9. 1888, not only did not become a citieen herself hv reason of such mar-riagejUbut she did not lose her conneetion with her tribe nor Eease to be an Indim; no that the law of descent among the Indinns, which is often through the mother, would seem to have included her offspring a8 members of her tribe. Since the patisage of that act, however, the effect of the marriage' of an Indian woman to a citienn of the United States upon the etstlls and rights in hor tribe of hex offspring by suchmzmiage is totally difFerent. Now, and hereafter, by hermar-riage to a citizen, she separates herself from her trihe and becomes identified with the people of the United States as distinguished from the people of her tribe. Her children will be oitieens of the United States in all resuects, and in no resnect can they be deemed to bemembers of her tribe. They a r s ~ ~ e r i o a nneo,t lndian;. They would therefore have no right to share in theproperty of the tribe, except such as they might take by representation of the mother. As long a8 the mother remains a member of the trihe her interest in the tribal property is only a personal inteFeat, and at her death reverts to the benefit of the tribe. This would seem right in view of the fact that her children are dso deemed to ho members of the tribe and have status and rights of their own therein. They belong to the tribe, and in eaae of her death they am caard for and supported b~ it. But, aa shown above,:whm she aepa-rates herself from her trihe and beoomes a aitiaen of the United States bv intermar-riage, her children will be citizens and will not have any atatus or rights of their own by law in the mother's tribe. They could not take allotments or receive annu-ities in.the absence of treaty provision to that eEect, but they conld inherit the lend allotted to the mother and the moneys payable to her. In such an instance I think that jjutics would demand that the joint-tenancy feature of sumivorahip, which is present in all Indian tenures, so long as tribal relation is in farce, shoald be deemed to be eliminated so far a8 regards her undivided as well as her divided proportion of the tribal property, and her interest should he permitted to descend to her children in case of her death before partition ocoura and 8. settlement of trihql matters is made. By this I mean that where an Indian woman has by virtue of the act of Au-m s t 9. 1888. become* oitizenof the United Ststes and dies before allotment of the londs of her triho oecnrd, or beiore thu final distribution 181 the tribal funds t a k a place, aooh rhildren (the ihsuo of rhn nlarriage hy virrna of which shobecnmo a, eiticen of the United States) as mav survive her should be allowed to take bbv representation the allotment she would be entitled to receive if alive, and her pro rata of the funds of the tribe; but they should not he permitted to receive allot-menta in their own right or any pro rnta of their own of said lands or fnuds. Another provision is made in the act of August 9, 1888, whicl~ I regard w signifi-cant, end that is where, in seetion 1, Congress declares "That no white man not otherwise s member of any tribe of Indians who may hereafter marry an Indian |
