OCR Text |
Show follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights;" and adds that this la,w of nature, so far as it has become a part of tlre common law, in the absence of :~nyp ositive enactlue~lto n the subject, must be the rule in the case before it. Nearlx all questions which wight arise,under the principles to be deduced fronr the above opinion and decisiou, a.6 to the loss of tribal rights by residing away from the tribe and assuming United States citizenship, aae set at rest by the general allotment act approved Feh-rnary 8,1887 (24 Stats., 388). Sectio114 of that act authorizes allotments upon the public domain to Indians uot resicling npon a reservation or for whose tribe no reservation has beeu provided; and seclion (i de. clares that every Indian to vhom allotment shall Lax-e been so made mho has volontarily take11 up his residence separate and apart from any tribe in the United States alltl ailopted the habits of civilized life, is a citizen of the United States auil entitled to all rights, etc., assuch citi-zen, without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting hie right to tribal or otherproperty. But the question still remains, where the point as to residence is not involved, as to the extent to ~11ichth e principles laid down in the case of Heynolds should be apl~liedto the apl~licationsf or tribal rela-tions of persons of mixed blood. Sllould the rnle that nationality or citizenship follows the father's condition be construed to deirr~nille property rights in Indian tribes, or shoulcl it be confined only to qoes-tions of citizens hi^) aod nationality to Irhich it in term applies$ The Indians liring in tribal relations hare beeu declarecl by the courts to be LLdistincpto litical commnnities" and LLclomestidce pendel~t nations;" also to be ' l under the pupilage of the Gorernment." Tl~e11 e-culiarity of their status, ae tllns clefi~~eadp,p ears still more anomalous when we co~lsider the fact that each Indian is entitled to and will ob-tain his individual estate by division of the tribal propertx, and is thus virtually in tile attitude of a tenant, in common with his bretlll.en of the domain of his tribe. The political status auil nationahty of the In-ilian tribes is thus interworen ~ i t thhe property rights pf the Indians individually. Another consideration of importance in the matter is the helpless and dependent condition of the tribes and the resulting necessity fur the Government, in adjusting their rights and interests, to pursue a liberal policy, without reference to technical rules. After careful consideration of the question, I incline to the opinion that the rule laid down in the Reynolds case shoulil not be l~eld con-clusire as against the application of mixed bloo(1s for tribaa benefits where the claimants in other respects clearly prove their rights thereto. There is no doub!, that there is a stage at ahich, by the admixture of white blood and non.affiliation with the Indian tribes, persons would be debarred from participating in tribal benefits. The admixture of blood, however, must be considered iu conuectiou with all the ciroun~stances |