INDIAN CITIZENSHIP TESTED
STATUS FINALLY ESTABLISHED—RIGHT TO VOTE NOW UNDISPUTED
The case of the United States
versus Charlie Jones grew out of
the voting which Jones did at the
general election pf Nov. 7th, 1922
when Jones swore in his vote after
challenge by L. M. Churchill, elec
tion judge at Wrangell, Alaska.
Certain leaders of the Natives
have felt for a long time that these
people are free born citizens of the
United States under the 14th amend
ment and also under the act of
Congress passed February 8, 1887.
And because the subject of fisheries
is so important to them and because
it is a subject on which they are the
best informed, the natives have been
urged to vote for particular men
who had shown by their records that
they were fairminded.
Charlie Jones was selected by the
Wrangell City Council as being their
strongest case to prove that the said
Jones was a legal Indian and not a
citizen. In many respects, they were
right, for Jones is an old Indian,
uneducated, he could not read or
write, and he lived on lands which
have been surveyed by the govern
ment as “Indian Possessions.”
The star witness for the gov
ernment was Billy Thomas,, who at
one time was related to Charlie
Jones by marriage. He learned to
read and write late in life and final
ly became U. S. Commissioner at
Wrangell.
The other star witness was L. M.
Churchill, who was married to an
Indian woman and raised a fine
family of boys and girls, children
that would be a credit to any father
or mother.
The other star witness was Mayor
John Grant who is also married to
an Indian woman and who raised
one of the finest families known to
this writer.
We have wondered, though, why
such men who have cast in their lots
generally with the native Alaskans
should continue the persecution of
the race into which they married.
A great deal of unnecessary and
irrelevant testimony was introduced
and permitted, but the question at
last turned on whether or not Jones
had abandoned his tribal relations
and was living after the manner of a
civilized life.
Thomas said it was his opinion
that Jones had not, and when pressed
in cross-examination to state in what
respect he had failed to live after the
manner of one civilized, Thomas said
that Jones regarded himself as the
successor of Chief Shakes and chief
of the Non-ni-ah-yi clan; that he
could not read or write; that he lived
on an Indian reserve; and that his
house was not painted. The other
witnesses testified in like manner.
In a well considered opinion, Judge
Thomas Reed disposed of all legal
questions, the important points be
ing as follows:
“Every Indian born within the
territorial limits of the United States
who has voluntarily taken up within
said limits his residence, separate
and apart from any tribe of Indians,
therein and has adopted the habits
of civilized life, is hereby declared
to be a citizen of the United States.
“An Indian tribe, in a legal sense,
is a community of the original tribe
or race, having laws, rules and regu
lations governing themselves and ow
ing allegiance to the authority of tho
tribe or the tribal law rather than of
the United States itself.
“Some question is raised about the
tiefendant residing on a tract of land
shown on the plat of the townsite of
Wrangell as ‘Indian possessions,’ as
an indication that he had not taken
up his residence separate and apart
from any tribe of Indians. * * * I
* * * instruct you that the so
called reservation or Indian possess
ions at Wrangell is not a reserva
tion in a technical or legal sense, but
is land that was withheld from occu
pation and sale to others by virtue
of the acts of Congress which I have
just cited to you (May 30, 1884).
* * * This is different from the
reservation made by treaty with the
Indians or a reservation by virtue
of the Executive authority of the
United States or by the Congress vf
the United States. There the re
servation is made and the land is
withdrawn from public sale or dis
position and remains so withdrawn
until revoked by the authority which
created the reservation. But an In
dian residing on a reservation of this
class, not being an allottee; that is,
holding his land in severalty, cannot
be a citizen of the United States in
my opinion because he is on a re
servation created by the authority
stated for a certain number or kind
or tribe of Indians and is distinctly
a ward of the government and sub
ject only to the laws of the United
States, relating to Indian tribes, but
an Indian residing on the class of
lands of the Wrangell townsite is a
citizen if he voluntarily takes up his
residence separate and apart from
any tribe, as I have defined the word
tribe to you, and has adopted the
habits of civilized life.
“Some testimony was introduced on
the point that the defendant had been
lefused a certificate of citizenship,
authorized by an act of the Terri
torial legislature of 1915 * * *
and therefore Jones should have
known that he was not a citizen. I
instruct you that the fact that a cer
tificate under the territorial law, was
refused the defendant is not even
prima facie evidence that he was not
a citizen under the act of Congress
of Feb. 8, 1887. The Congress of the
United States, on that date, speci
fied what Indians should be citizens
of the United States and no state,
territory or authority has any power
or authority to modify or add to that
statute which provides that an In
dian who is. born in the United
States and residing within the juris
diction there, who has voluntarily
taken up his residence separately
and apart from any tribe and adopt
ed the habits of civilized life, is a
citizen of the United States and en
titled to all the rights, privileges and
immunities thereof.”
The jury who had listened to the
entire case very carefully and among
whom were several persons from the
town of Wrangell, returned a verdict
of “not guilty” on the second ballot.
The conclusions of law which think
ing men who followed this case
closely must adopt as a result, for
the evidence was comprehensive, the
customs of the different tribes of
Alaska Natives were considered, the
practices of the Indians of Wrangell,
Sitka and other towns were brought
in, are as follows:
1. That there is no “tribe of In
dians” in the legal sense in Wrangell,
or anywhere else where the same
form of tribal organization prevails.
Well-informed people know this ter
ritory to begin at least from Yaku
tat and extends to Saxman and to
include the entire Thinget speaking
Indians.