trated them and the hay was spoiled. The next year he called together the most active and energetic of the boys, and, giving each a present of ammunition, he told them they were appointed soldiers to guard the hay. They accepted the office of special constable without hesitation, and watched the stacks with so much. vigilance that none of them were injured. Some of these boys had been ringleaders in mischief the year before, but they knew what was expected from a soldier and discharged their duties faithfully.

When it became necessary to appoint officers to carry out a council decision, generally a sufficient number were appointed to overcome all anticipated resistance. On their way to punish a transgressor, they raised a certain shout, called the "officer's shout." which indicated that they were acting by public authority. They were authorized to break the guns, cut in pieces the clothing and tents of offenders, and, in extreme cases, to take their lives.

The Dakotas had no permanent officers except the chief and the chief soldier, and these officers had no authority except what was granted from time to time for special purposes. When the chief was about to transact public business with the officers of our government, he was advised what to do, and, if practicable, many of his people accompanied him to see that he observed his instructions.

If chiefs were induced to sign treaties without consulting their people, they were dissatisfied and were suspicious of unfair dealings; for they never permitted a chief or any other officer to act for them in public matters without their advice. An ignorance or a disregard of the democratic character of Indian government has been the source of much evil to them and to others; and they have often been accused of violating treaties which they felt under no obligation to observe.

As a general rule the office of chief was considered hereditary, but there were many disputes about the succession, and the office. was sometimes seized by some other relative of the chief to the exclusion of his son. The rivalry between the competitors for the office was often so violent as to lead to bloodshed. This happened at Swan Lake, Carver, and Kaposia. Little Crow was wounded and two of his brothers were killed in a quarrel of this

There was no difference in the rank of chiefs except that formerly some deference was paid to Wabashaw of Kiuksa, in consideration of signal services once rendered to the nation by one of his ancestors.

Besides the chief, there was in each band an officer called by the whites the "chief soldier." His office was considered inferior to that of the chief, but his personal qualities might give him greater authority with the band than the chief had. There was apt to be a jealousy between the chief and the chief soldier, a part of the band favoring one, and a part the other.

There had been a time in the history of the Dakotas when their chiefs were much fewer in number, and they were probably then of more importance in their official relation to their bands. They had very little influence in 1834. At that time many of them owed all their importance to the fact that the government transacted business with the Indians only through their chiefs. The necessity of having a chief at every little village, while it increased the number of the chiefs, diminished their influence.

Our government considered the chiefs competent to make contracts, binding on others; but no such power was delegated to them by their people. A chief might sign a treaty conveying away millions of acres of land, who would not have been employed by his people to make a contract for them to the amount of ten dollars.

At home the chiefs had no authority and little influence merely by virtue of their official position. They had no power to make laws themselves, nor were they entrusted with the execution of the laws made by others. They were seldom leaders of war parties, and were compelled to support themselves and their families just as others did. They were not ordinarily distinguished from the common people by any peculiar privileges, honors, or emoluments, except what they gained by their own merits.

Their power over their people depended chiefly upon their ability as speakers. If they could not make effective speeches, they were little heeded; but if they could speak well, they exercised great control over their respective bands.

They seldom or never attempted to carry out any important public measure in opposition to the wishes of a majority of their people. A chief might issue orders with a show of authority, but not before having first ascertained whether his orders were likely to be popular. The opinion of the people concerning any matter of public interest was commonly ascertained in a council, called for that purpose, where anyone could speak his sentiments; and in these popular assemblies there were often other men who had more influence than the chiefs.

LAWS.

The Dakotas had no authoritative enactments such as would be called laws among civilized people. They had customs which it was infamous to disregard, like that which has been mentioned concerning the division of the carcass of the deer. There were a great many of these traditionary rules which were generally observed, but the breach of these rules was seldom punished except by an expression of disapprobation. This popular odium was not, however, a light thing for an Indian to bear, for he could not isolate himself but must live continuously with those who upbraided and despised him.

Their temporary laws have been mentioned. They were frequently enacted, sometimes rigidly enforced, and might continue in operation many months at a time.

Most things that are considered great crimes by us were emphatically condemned by the Dakotas, and this was doubtless a great restraint to the evil-minded, preventing the commission of many crimes; but the guilty, though condemned by public opinion, were not punished by public authority.

Even murderers escaped punishment unless the relatives or friends of the murdered person avenged his death. Yet the fear of private retaliation afforded a better security for human life than one would expect. Each one knew that if he killed a person who had relatives able to avenge his death, he would probably have to answer for it with his own blood. He could not hope to escape through any technicality of the law, or by the disagreement of the jury. There was no place where he could hide himself and thus elude the avenger of blood, so that those who had relatives or friends able to avenge them were probably as safe as they

would have been, among such a people, under the protection of law. They who had none to avenge them might be killed with impunity, but those who killed them were stigmatized as murderers, and their crimes were never forgotten.

The right to avenge the death of relatives was carried so far that some who had killed others accidentally were compelled tc redeem their lives with costly presents; but in all cases of that kind which fell under the observation of the writer, there was some suspicion that the manslaughter was not accidental. When one was killed in a sudden quarrel and the murder was not premeditated, the difficulty might be compromised without the death of the manslayer. Life was safer than one would suppose that it could be among such a people; but there were some who, like Joab, had committed more than one murder with impunity.

Other offences against individuals were punished. if punished at all, by individual or private retaliation.

The husband might punish his wife for unfaithfulness by cutting off the end of her nose, thus spoiling her beauty and rendering her less attractive to her paramours. Cases must have been rare in which women were thus treated, for the writer can recollect only two or three who were mutilated in the manner named. When the Dakotas were first visited by the white people, women were found among them who had been thus punished for adultery. It is a curious coincidence that some American sailors, who were recently shipwrecked on the northeast coast of Asia and spent a year or two among the natives of that region, report that women of that country who are unfaithful to their husbands are punished in this same manner.

Some crimes, such as theft, killing horses, etc., can hardly be said to have been punished at all, though their commission sometimes caused quarrels and provoked retaliation. They made few efforts to detect thieves, and were not much in the habit of reclaiming stolen property unless it was of considerable value. When they found property that had been stolen from them in the possession of others, they often said nothing and let the thieves enjoy it in peace.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE.

In stature the Dakotas are rather taller than people of European ancestry, that is, their average height appears to be greater. As they are a homogeneous people, there is more uniformity of stature among them than among white Americans. Not many are very tall or very short. Some of the women are tall and slender, but most of them are much shorter and stouter than the men.

The complexion of the Dakotas is considerably darker than of Europeans, but is not very dark. Their cheek bones are not particularly prominent, their features are regular, and many of them are good looking. Taken together the race cannot be characterized as a homely race.

The men are supposed to have little or no beards, but they must have taken much pains to extirpate them. Among those who have abandoned the custom of their forefathers, some whose faces were formerly as smooth as a woman's now wear respectable beards, to the surprise of their old acquaintances.

But little need be said about the size, features, complexion, etc., of the Dakotas, for these will probably continue to be what they now are for generations to come. The object of this work is not to tell what they are and will be, but what they have been and will never be again.

NATURAL DISPOSITION.

In regard to the natural temper and disposition of the Dakotas, there was the same diversity among them as among white people. Each individual had his own peculiarities, differing often very much from the peculiarities of others, so that a true description of one might be false when applied to another. Some were frank, communicative, and confiding; others were reserved, sly, and suspicious. Some were very good-natured, jovial and full of fun, while others were morose, and very seldom in a good humor; and between these two extremes, were all the different gradations of character. Yet they might, as a people, be characterized as agreeable and pleasant in temper and manners.

Many of them were entertaining in conversation, full of wit, good sense, and good humor, with a great relish for jokes and quick at repartee; while a few of them seemed to be almost always in a surly mood, and their conversation dull and disagree