Summary

Halbert v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The rule is general that, in the absence of provision to the contrary, the right of individual Indians to share in tribal property, whether lands or funds, depends on tribal membership and is terminated when the membership is ended. [9] Under the operation of this rule an Indian woman loses her tribal membership where she marries a white man, separates from the tribe and lives with him among white people.
Source: Wikisource

Halbert v. United States — Opinion of the Court

If the husband be a citizen of the United States, the woman by the marriage becomes also a citizen, [10] but there is no incompatibility between tribal membership and United States citizenship.
The children of a marriage between an Indian woman and a white man usually take the status of the father; but if the wife retains her tribal membership and the children are born in the tribal environment and these reared by her, with the husband failing to discharge his duties to them, they take the status of the mother.
Source: Wikisource

Halbert v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Some years later the local superintendent reported that the reservation, by reason of being small and containing but a small amount of agricultural and pasture lands, had proved unattractive to the Indians; that the Chehalis, Chinook and other coastal tribes in southwestern Washington, like the Quinaielts and Quillehutes, who were parties to the treaty, were all 'emphatically fish-eaters,' drawing their subsistence almost wholly from the water, and that all of these fish-eating tribes should be collected on a single reservation, including suitable fisheries.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature