Lafitau, in one of the passages quoted above, has given some idea of the ordinary business carried on by the tribal or village council, when acting as a legislative body. According to his account-"all affairs of the country which demand some solemnity, such as the reception of ambassadors, responding to them, declaring war, mourning the dead, holding a feast, etc.," were disposed of by the tribal government. It was its function to deal with all matters of interest to the tribe as over against those which concerned only particular clans and gentes. According to Mr. Morgan, "it devolved upon the council to guard and protect the common interests of the tribe; upon the intelligence and courage of the people, and upon the wisdom and foresight of the council, the prosperity and the existence of the tribe depended. Questions and exigencies were arising . . . which required the existence of all these qualities to meet and manage.' Hence "The council of the tribe had power to declare war and make peace, to send and receive embassies and to make alliances,"2 and to maintain a public Treasury to pay its expenses. In regard to the relations of the community with supernatural powers, it was the duty of the council, under the direction of the medicine-men, to decide upon action and avert disease and disaster, by means of well-timed feasts and propitiatory offerings. It was the function of the council to guard against attack from human enemies, by seeing to it that the village always had a sufficient military force in garrison. Among the trading Hurons the village council always determined the number of young men to go out on trading expeditions and the number to stay at home to defend the village. Sagard says " they do not usually undertake these long journeys without having first obtained permission from the chiefs, who, in a special council, are accustomed to determine yearly the number of men who ought to go from each village in order not to leave them entirely empty of warriors; and whoever should

3

Jes. Rel., XVII, 167 sq.; LIII, 275; X, 231.

5 Sagard, p. 260.

desire to go otherwise, could do it as far as any restraining force was concerned, but he would be blamed, and thought unwise and uncivil ”—(malavisé et incivil). Similarly, among the Iroquois a left the village against the will

war expedition of any size never of the governmental authorities. On the other hand, war was sometimes fomented or agreed upon in cold blood by the councils of two or more tribes, merely in order to keep up the spirit and discipline of the warriors' organization. The most prominent chief of one of the Iroquois tribes forced the unwilling chief of the Neutral Nation to consent to such a war, silencing the complaints of the latter by the indignant query, " with whom, then, he wanted his children to play."1

In general, it is evident that the legislative activities of the tribal council were confined to the making of special enactments applying to some particular occasion. Laws, in the strict sense of the term, were not made by the council. In their place, the Iroquois had certain custom-made rules of conduct, looking toward the security of person and property and the general stability of the clan. It was in connection with these fundamental laws that the Iroquois councils became judicial bodies, charged with the duty of investigating and punishing violations of the principles upon which clan life was founded. Murder, theft, adultery, treason, and witchcraft were the chief crimes to be dealt with. In cases where the plaintiff and the accused belonged to different gentes and the councils of these gentes were unable to settle the matter between them, the question came up before the tribal council. The latter then determined upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and the amount of indemnity to be paid in case of an unfavorable verdict.

The regular agents employed to see to the carrying out of the legislative and executive decrees of the council were the Head Chiefs of the gentes, who were also councillors.3

1Lafitau, II, 162 sq.

Powell, "Wyandot Gov't," Eth. Rep., 1879-1880, p. 65.

It was their

3 Mr. Morgan asserts the existence of another set of officials-" The keepers of the Faith." These, besides performing certain religious duties, acted as a sort of police, reporting evil deeds to the council. ("Anc. Soc.," p. 82.)

duty to make formal announcement of the decisions of the council, and to arrange for their execution. Thus it fell to the chiefs to manage the inter-tribal and village games for the cure of the sick and other purposes, and to see to the final payment of indemnities, the settlement of quarrels, etc.1 Theoretically, every gentile chief was the equal of every other in the tribe from the point of view of authority and dignity; nevertheless, actual superiority in intellect and ability, generally gave some one chief a preeminent position in tribal politics.2 In foreign negotiations this chief might be regarded as Head Chief of the tribe; his whole nation might even be referred to by his name. To quote from Le Jeune:3 There is none [of the chiefs] who by virtue of his election is of higher rank than others. Those hold the first rank who have aquired it by intellectual preeminence, eloquence, free expenditure, courage, and wise conduct. Consequently, the affairs of the village are referred principally to that one of the chiefs who has these qualifications; and the same is true in regard to the affairs of the whole country."

That the chiefs and common councillors were directly representative of the clans, is evident from the fact that in the enforcement of the decrees of the council the chiefs needed no sanction behind them, except that of public opinion. Such statements as the following are frequent in the Jesuit Relations and elsewhere: "They have no government at all; such power as the captains have is little more than that of criers and trumpets.' 994 Or again: "There is no government here to make private individuals obey

1 Jes. Rel., XVII, 201.

2 Powell, "Wyandot Gov't," Eth. Rep., 1879-1880, p. 62.

Jes. Rel., X, 231. Cf. Lafitau, I, 471—“ Quoi que les chefs paraissent avoir un autorité égale, qu'ils soient tous d'une attention extrême à ne pas paraître vouloir attirer à soi les affaires et se rendre despotiques; il y a toujours néanmoins, quelque preëminence des uns sur les autres, et c'est autant que j'en puis juger, ou celui dont la cabane a fondé le village, ou bien celui dont la Tribu [Wolf, Bear or Turtle] est la plus nombreuse, ou bien encore celui qui est le plus considéré par sa capacité. J'avoue pourtant que c'est ce que je ne puis pas bien décider.”

Cf. Morgan, "Anc. Soc.," pp. 118-119.

Jes. Rel., XV, 157.

the resolutions of a council." In the Jesuit Relations occur frequent references to councils held to discuss religious topics with the missionaries. It must be remembered that the relationship of the village with supernatural powers was considered as much a thing of public interest as its relationship with other tribes; nevertheless, the decisions of the councils upon these points could never be forced upon a dissenting element in the population.. Thus in case the young men proved refractory, persuasion on the part of the Elders was all that could be employed to make them conform to the opinions and decisions of the council. To quote Le Jeune, "In view of the perfect understanding that reigns among them, I am right in maintaining that they are not without laws." It was, indeed, what Le Jeune called " the perfect understanding between them" that gave compelling power to the decrees of the councils. Every individual warrior and every tiller of the fields was so merged in the clan that he could have few or no interests aside from it, and from the gentile body and tribe of which it formed a constituent part. Obviously, any action of his which was contrary to the interests of the organization, was contrary to his own interests, since there was no life for him outside of the clan. The clan and gens, on the other hand, took upon itself all responsibility for the behavior of its individual members. A crime, once proved, had to be atoned for by an indemnity of wampum and skins, etc., paid by the gens of the offender. In case the injured man belonged to another village or tribe than the defendants, the fine fell upon the whole village or tribe of the latter, the one organization thus making amends to the other for the injury it had received in the person of one of its members. "They have only one method of justice for injuries," says the Jesuit Relations, "which is that the whole village must make amends by presents."5 And again," "The presents given on ac

1LIII, 283, 293. Cf. VI, 15; X, 233, 265; LVII, 67.

2 LIV, 35. Cf. Schoolcraft, III, 184-185.

3 Jes. Rel., X, 215.

Jes. Rel., XXXIII, 243.

5 Jes. Rel., XV, 157.

6 Jes. Rel., XXII, 291.

4

count of the death of a man who has been killed are very numerous. . . . It is not usually the assassin who gives them, but his relatives, his village, or his nation, according to the quality or condition of the person who has been put to death." Le Jeune gives a long account of the formalities observed in making amends for crime. His description gives some idea of the trouble a lawbreaker caused to the organization to which he belonged. "They punish murderers, thieves, traitors and sorcerers; and in regard to murderers, although they do not preserve the severity of their ancestors towards them, nevertheless the little disorder there is among them in this respect makes me conclude that their procedure is scarcely less efficacious than is the punishment of death elsewhere; for the relatives pursue not only him who has committed the murder, but address themselves to the whole village, which must give satisfaction for it, and furnish, as soon as possible, for this purpose, as many as sixty presents, the least of which must be of value of a new beaver robe. The captain presents them in person, and makes a long harangue at each present that he offers, so that entire days sometimes pass in this ceremony."1 In short, to quote again from the Jesuit Relations: "The trouble caused by a murderer to an entire community exercises a powerful restraint over them."2 And again, "their justice is very efficacious for repressing evil . . . for it is the public who make reparation for the offenses of individuals." 3

Obstinate adherence to a course of action injurious to the general welfare, simply resulted in the expulsion of the offender from his clan and gens. Such outlawry was as formidable a punishment to the Iroquois law-breaker as death could be to the modern white man. The sentence of outlawry was passed by the gentile and tribal councils, and might be of either one of two grades of severity. In one case the man is simply left without the protection of his gens, and his death will be unavenged: in the second case, it becomes the duty of any member of the tribe who meets him, to put him to death. The outlaw generally fled to the woods, and, 1 Jes. Rel., X, 215, 217.

8

2 Jes. Rel., XXII, 291.

XXXIII, 235. Cf. XXVIII, 49; XIX, 85; XXXIII, 229 sq.

Powell," Wyandot Gov't," Eth. Rep., 1879-1880, pp. 67 and 68.