Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri / Edited with Notes and Biographical Sketch

by Edwin Thompson Denig

Property

The personal property of these tribes consists chiefly of horses. A man’s wealth is estimated by the number of these animals he owns. Besides which they have their lodges, guns, clothing, and cooking utensils. Possession of an article of small value is a right seldom disputed, if the article has been honestly obtained, as their laws of retaliation are too severe to admit of constant quarrels. But horses being their principal aim, possessing them is nothing without force to defend. To explain this fully it will be necessary to give a few examples of the different kinds of rights and their tenure. Rights to property are of the following description: Articles found, articles made by themselves, stolen from enemies, given them, and bought. Two Indians traveling together, one discovers a lost horse and points it out to the other, who pursues and succeeds in catching it. Now the one who made the discovery claims a portion of the horse on the ground that had he not seen it or not shown it to the other most likely it would not be in his possession. The other, therefore, to extinguish this claim, would be obliged to pay some article equivalent to half the value of the horse, which in case he refused to do would end in the horse being killed on the spot, and the dispute terminated. The same rule would apply to finding a gun, but smaller articles would not attract attention enough to produce a quarrel. An article is considered lost when the owner has abandoned the search.

All clothing, skins, arms, etc., made by themselves are the sole property of those who made them, and this is the only general right among them that admits of no dispute. To take away such things by force would be reckoned a mean action; would be discountenanced individually by all; and the perpetrator would fall into general disgrace, among both men and women. When horses are stolen from enemies the case is different. Suppose seven Indians conjointly steal 45 horses in the night from their enemies. They would drive them off in a body until beyond reach of pursuit and then each would lay claim, catch, and keep as many as he could manage and defend. No equal division or anything like it would take place. Men of desperate character would take the greater part and leave milder or less strongly supported Indians with one or two and some would get none. To do this sometimes two to four will combine against the others and take the largest share, but one or two men seldom carry this so far as to incur the resentment of the rest of the party. It generally depends upon the number of relatives each has with him, or his force in camp, before either of which those not so strongly supported must give way. Quarrels often occur about these divisions, and horses in dispute are killed or stolen in the night by those who have few from those who have many before their return home.

An Indian never gives away anything without some expectation of a return or some other interested motive. If one observes another in possession of a fine horse he would like to have he will take the occasion of some feast or dance and publicly present him with a gun or something of value, flattering his bravery, praising his liberality, and throwing out general hints as to his object, though not directly mentioning it. He will let the matter rest thus for some days, and if the other does not present him with the horse will demand his gift returned, which is done.

One will sometimes give a horse to another for some purpose or equivalent and allow him to keep it; but should the receiver give the horse to a third person the original owner will often claim him and take him back, giving for his reason that he did not bestow him on that person, and although he had presented him to the first, he should have kept him and not given him away to another. Smaller gifts are regarded in the light of loans and generally paid for in some way. They may be considered as exchanges of necessities which they take this way to effect.

One would think that an article bought by them or of them should be the property of the purchaser, but this is not always the case. If an Indian buys a horse from another and it is stolen the first night or two afterwards, or lamed the first race, part, and sometimes the whole, of the payment must be returned to pacify the loser.

If a gun is bought and it bursts or is broken shortly afterwards, in like manner a refund of a portion of the purchase money would be required. And worse still if the gun in the act of bursting had crippled the man’s hands, which is often the case, the accident would also be paid for by him who sold the gun. These things are so well known and anticipated among them that the vendor immediately after the accident or loss invites the loser to a feast and by the payment of something settles the matter. This has the effect of their having but few bargains or dealings with each other, so much so that a horse bought and paid for by us from them can not be resold to one of their own people if they know it, because the original owner will take it if he sees it in the hands of one of his own people and that person is in a situation to be thus imposed upon. Most of their horses having had several owners, they are always a precarious gift or purchase. Property obtained by gambling is also held by a very slight tenure, so much so that the loser has many chances in his favor and these operations are much fairer among them than among whites.

Robberies of each other on any large scale are seldom attempted.

They would attract the notice and induce the interference of the camp soldiers and relations of the robbed, and bloodshed would be the consequence. Infractions of smaller rights are left to individual settlement and are paid for. What prevents impositions in smaller matters is the disgrace and disgust that would fall upon any man guilty of petty infringements of personal rights.

With regard to the Indian of the British dominions applying to an agent of the United States for the payment of a private debt contracted by a north Briton, a resident of Hudson Bay, the probable operation of his mind was as follows: “All whites are very particular in endeavoring to collect their debts from Indians, and the richer are less generous. White traders are interlopers. The country, game, and all else in the territory belong to the Indians. The whites have no claims upon our generosity; are entitled to nothing without paying for it. Now a white man owes me, and from him I can get nothing. Indian agents are sent expressly to see justice done the Indians, are responsible and sensible, besides being rich and powerful. He will perhaps allow me my claim, or interpose his authority with the Hudson Bay people to make them pay. It is at least worthy of a trial, for if I gain nothing I lose nothing.”

Most Indians of the British possessions in America, at least the Cree and Chippewa, are a great deal farther advanced in knowledge of every kind than those of whom we write. They have tolerably correct ideas of right and wrong and are famed for the shrewdness they exhibit in all kinds of dealings, to their own advantage. It is not even likely that if this Indian claim was not settled by the agent spoken to, he therefore abandoned it, but it is more probable that he dunned every one of the Hudson Bay traders for years until he got some remuneration. We have known an Indian at Fort Union to claim payment for carrying out three bundles belonging to one of our people when the fort was on fire. This demand was made 12 years after the circumstance happened. They never forget a claim on whites, but never recollect one upon themselves.