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.
Territorial Rights
How right to territory originally accrued can perhaps be learned by the way in which it is here discussed. None of these prairie tribes claim a special right to any circumscribed or limited territory. Their arguments are these, and have been before mentioned. All the prairie or territory in the West (known to them) and now occupied by all the Indians was created by Wakoñda for their sole use and habitation. To maintain this they state the entire fitness of the Indian for the life of a hunter; his good legs, eyes, and other qualifications which they do not allow to any other persons. The suitableness of the prairie for the support of great numbers of buffalo, and the wooded streams for smaller game, together with the adaptness of the game to their wants in meat, clothing, lodges, etc. All this is to prove their general right to the whole of the hunting grounds, where buffalo are to be found and Indians stationed. Now each nation finds themselves in possession of a portion of these lands, necessary for their preservation. They are therefore determined to keep them from aggression by every means in their power. Should the game fail, they have a right to hunt it in any of their enemies’ country, in which they are able to protect themselves.
It is not land or territory they seek in this but the means of subsistence, which every Indian deems himself entitled to, even should he be compelled to destroy his enemies or risk his own life to obtain it. Moreover, they are well aware that the surrounding nations would do the same and sweep them off entirely if they could with impunity, and each claims the same right. Possession is nothing without power to retain, and force to repel, and to defend with success they must limit themselves to a certain extent of territory, for by separating their force too widely they would be cut off in detail. By these different necessary locations the country has been parceled out, each holding what they can with safety occupy, and making any encroachments they are able. They claim the land as theirs because that portion affords the means of subsistence with more security than by moving elsewhere they could procure. To sell their lands, they say, would be the same as to sell their means of living, for by moving elsewhere large bodies of enemies would require to be displaced, which could not be effected without great loss and perhaps failure. Indians who cultivate, such as the Mandan, Gros Ventres, and Arikara, only claim as their own the small patches that they till, and their right even to these (individually) only exists as long as they are occupied by the crops of the cultivator.
Should he fence it in and work it every year no one would dispute his right to do so, but if the land be left idle some other would plant upon it. It is in fact merely loaned from the general district for the purpose of him who wishes to cultivate. There being no scarcity of land, however, no difficulties occur on this point. From this view it would appear that their right to territory is nothing more than defending that portion on which they are located as necessary for their support. Invasion of a neighboring tribe’s country would only be the consequence of famine or scarcity of game in their own and would be looked upon by them in the light of extending their hunting after the buffalo (which is the property of all Indians) into another part of the great plains intended by Wakoñda for their support, being aware at the same time that they risk their lives by so doing. The foregoing are the outlines of the arguments they use. It is because they are at war that their lands appear to be distinct portions assigned to each nation, although between each there are several hundred miles of neutral ground, the nature of their forces not admitting of closer approximation. Were all at peace it would present the feature of one great estate on which each would rove and hunt when and where he pleased, and what is now neutral would become hunting grounds. But as long as hunting was their sole occupation no claims would be set up by any man to a certain portion of land.
They must become stationary, acquire property, real estate, before land becomes of any value in their estimation, further than the space it affords to game of all kinds to live and increase for their benefit.
Primogeniture
There is no general or fixed law of primogeniture. The eldest son is, however, mostly a favorite, and although the custom is not universal we have known instances of legacies left. If the parent be a chief he will, if time permits, present his eldest son with his medal when he anticipates death, if his son is of sufficient age to wear it. They are anxious to be succeeded in their office by some of their children, and the eldest would soonest be of sufficient age to take upon himself the responsibility. But unfortunately for the wishes of the parent the office or station of chief does not depend upon the law of primogeniture, or any other, but upon the will of the greater part to be ruled by him who is thus designated, and the capacities and standing of the applicant. The chief whose speech is recorded on page 598 presented his medal to his eldest son when on his death bed in the presence of 20 or 30 persons of his band, intimating his desire that his son should take his place and “follow in the footsteps of his father.” The son not being the popular choice, another was appointed and the medal was left in our possession, where it yet remains, though his son was of age at his father’s (la-Chef-qui-parle) death six years ago, and is living yet, and has progressed no further than becoming a camp soldier.
Most of these Indians die violent deaths, either by war, accidents of the chase, or rapid diseases, and thus have no opportunity to dispose of their property, yet even when they have time do not often do it, owing to the difficulty of having these requests fulfilled after their demise. The dying request of a chief or warrior, if he makes any, is that his favorite horse, or sometimes two or three horses, shall be killed at his grave. Other horses, his gun, etc., are sometimes given to his relatives as bequests, and this gift contains an intimation to go to war after his death. The death of a warrior entails revenge, from, whatever cause his death arises—sickness or accident. The horses, therefore, there bequeathed are put in mourning by having their mane, tail, and ears cut off and their body smeared over with white clay. These, with the guns and other weapons bequeathed, are taken on the first war expedition by the persons who received them. We have been appointed executor of the will of an Indian who died at Fort Union some years since from a wound through the bowels. A short time before his death (about three hours) he called us to his bedside and made a distribution of some horses and other property to be kept for his children’s use, and desired his best running horse to be shot on the spot where he was to be buried, while he was yet living, which with the other requests were attended to.
There can be no doubt that if they were certain their dying requests would be fulfilled the custom of bequeathing their property when the circumstances of their death admitted it would be more general; but they know that the customs are such that after death all property must pass into the hands of strangers, as will be stated under the head of Death and Its Consequences. Even when dying bequests are made they are not always carried out. The horses and other property thus given to their families are given to others who cut their legs and bodies and cry a great deal at the interment, or rather on the occasion of their placing the body in a tree, as they usually do. When the great chief of the Crows, Long Hair, died no less than four hands were held out by four different Crow Indians, each offering to cut off two fingers to obtain the chief’s war horse that he ordered to be killed upon his grave, but their offers were rejected and the horse was killed.