The construction of an act of Congress may be involved by
implication so as to present a federal question.
Evidence that, notwithstanding a tribal law of 1876 directing
that marriages be solemnized by judge or preacher, it was customary
among the Chickasaws to disregard such ceremonies, with evidence
that two Indians held themselves out as man and wife and were
reputed married,
held enough to warrant a finding of
marriage contracted under the tribal customs, within the meaning of
the Act of Congress of May 2, 1890, ratifying marriages theretofore
contracted under the laws or tribal customs of Indian nations of
the Indian Territory.
158 P. 1125 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit by the defendant in error J. C. Chapman to
recover possession of certain land and to have his title quieted
against the claims of Lottie Carney, the plaintiff in error, and of
the Albersons, the other defendants in error. The right of
possession is immaterial now, but there was a judgment quieting the
title of the plaintiff against the above named parties which was
affirmed by the supreme court of the state and in which error is
alleged by Lottie Carney. The land was allotted to John Alberson, a
Chickasaw Indian, who was averred by the plaintiff to
Page 247 U. S. 103
be the lawful son of Charles Puiler, a Chickasaw, and Louisa
James, an Indian woman. She died, and later Alberson died leaving
Puller his sole heir, if Puller was married as alleged. Puller
conveyed to the plaintiff. The defendants denied the marriage, and
if they were right, Lottie Carney is Alberson's heir.
If any federal question is presented in the case, it arises
under the Act of Congress of May 2, 1890, c. 182, § 38, 26 Stat.
81, 98, by which all marriages theretofore "contracted under the
laws or tribal customs of any Indian nation" located in the Indian
Territory are declared valid. The date of the supposed marriage was
in 1887, and therefore, if it complied with the terms of the act,
it was validated if not valid before. The plaintiff in error, after
asking instructions as to what constituted a common law marriage
that were given in substance, asked for another that a common law
marriage was not recognized by the Chickasaws, and that a marriage
of Chickasaws without a compliance with their laws was void. Taking
all the requests for rulings and the rulings together, we are
inclined to agree with the court below that common law marriage and
marriage under the customs of the tribe were used as equivalent
phrases, and to assume in favor of the plaintiff in error that the
request means that a marriage of Chickasaws, although in accord
with their customs, was invalid under a Chickasaw Act of October
12, 1876, unless solemnized by a judge or ordained preacher of the
Gospel. This assumption would seem to carry with it the implication
that the Act of Congress did not validate a marriage in accordance
with still prevailing custom if no judge or preacher added his
sanction, and so to ask a construction of that Act that, again by
implication, was refused.
In this somewhat remote way a federal question is opened, but it
cannot profit the plaintiff in error. There was some evidence that
Charles Puller and Louisa James held themselves out as man and wife
and were reputed
Page 247 U. S. 104
married. There was evidence also that it was customary to
disregard solemnization before a judge or preacher. It would be
going somewhat far to construe the Chickasaw statute as purporting
to invalidate marriages not so solemnized. The Act of Congress made
valid marriages under either custom or law. Whatever may be the
requisites to satisfy that Act, the above-mentioned evidence
warranted a finding that they had been complied with, as is
expressly provided by statute for the case of a marriage of a white
man with an Indian woman. Act of August 9, 1888, c. 818, § 3, 25
Stat. 392. The reason for the rule is stronger here.
Judgment affirmed.