In their primitive life the Sioux Indians of North America had an intelligent system of jurisprudence, varying somewhat in the different bands, as our court practice varies in the several states, but nevertheless recognizing the same general principles throughout the confederacy.¹

It is not an easy thing to determine the laws or the practices of an unlettered people, who have abandoned the wild and primitive life to live under regulations prescribed by their conquerors, and who must depend upon tradition and recollection for the practices of the old life; but fortunately intelligent observers have from time to time, during the past two and one half centuries, noted their observations, and these, supplemented by the recollections of the older men now living, give to us a fairly clear understanding of the courts and the legal practices of these people.

Primarily the Sioux government was by clans,—patriarchal; but within the clan it very nearly approached the representative republican form. The council was the representative body which gave expression to the will of the people. True the council was selected by the chief of the clan, but his very tenure of office depended upon his using the nicest discretion in inviting into his cabinet the men of character, valor and influence, so that the body was almost invariably entirely representative of popular views and interests. Caste cut a considerable figure; indeed it has been said by those most intimate with Sioux life that there is as much caste among the Dakotas as among the Hindus.² Only high caste men of course would be permitted to sit in the deliberations, but when a council was to be convened the ordinary practice was for the chief's crier to go out and announce to the camp that a matter was to be considered in council, and the head men at once assembled and seated themselves in the council circle as a matter of course and of right.³ The chief, unquestionably a man of courage and physical power, was an executive officer who rarely asserted arbitrary rule, particularly in civil affairs, for the Sioux were too high spirited a people to tolerate anything savoring of despotism. Usually he was suave, diplomatic and tolerant, and enjoyed the affection and veneration of his people. Most public affairs were determined in the general council, including many subjects naturally falling within the jurisdiction of courts of justice, but aside from the council were two distinct courts, one exercising jurisdiction in matters civil and criminal in times of peace; the other taking the broadest and most comprehensive jurisdiction of all things military, and in time of war assuming jurisdiction in all of the affairs of the people, arbitrarily placing the camp under martial law.

The judges of these courts were usually twelve in number and held their places by hereditary right, though occasionally some low caste man, through some brilliant exploit would break into this exclusive and aristocratic circle and sometimes even exercised dominating influence which the aristocrats dared not oppose, though he was still regarded as a plebian upstart, and was despised by the upper ten, and his rank died with him. Ordinarily from seven to twelve judges sat for the trial of causes, but sometimes even a greater number were permitted. The civil court in time of peace took cognizance of civil and criminal matters arising in the band. Civil actions usually grew out of disputes about the ownership of property and the court patiently heard the testimony of the parties and witnesses and at once determined the ownership of the article, delivered it to the successful litigant and the decision was never reviewed or questioned. A majority of the court determined the judgment.

Criminal matters of which the court took cognizance were assaults, rapes, larceny and murder; all crimes against persons; and if committed against a member of the tribe were severely dealt with. Sometimes it was necessary to prove the crime by competent witnesses, and the court was the judge of the credibility of these who testified, but rarely, however, was it necessary to summon witnesses, for if the accused was really guilty it was a point of honor to admit the offense and take the consequences. Thus the real responsibility resting upon the court in most cases was to determine the penalty. Usually a severe penalty was imposed which could be satisfied by the payment of a certain number of horses or other specific property to the injured party, or his family, but if the offense was peculiarly repellent to the better sentiment of the camp the court might insist upon the summary infliction of the sentence imposed. This might be the death penalty, exile or whipping; or it might be the destruction of the teepee and other property of the convict. These latter penalties were, however, usually reserved for another class of offenses; crimes which were against the community rather than against an individual. These offenses were generally violations of the game laws and the offender could expect little mercy. How reasonable this policy was will be readily understood when we recall that the subsistence of the entire nation depended almost entirely upon the preservation of the wild game. The individual, who would wantonly kill game fit for food, or frighten it away needlessly from the vicinity of the camps was a public enemy and was treated accordingly. He was fined, his property destroyed, he was whipped, or if a persistent offender, he was reduced from his position as a hunter and made to do the menial duties of a squaw; the latter being the most humiliating and terrible sentence which could be imposed, deemed much worse than death and if the convict was a man of ordinary spirit he usually chose to commit suicide in preference.⁴

For some offenses a convict was exiled from the camp, given an old teepee and a blanket, but no arms, and was allowed to make a living if he could. Sometimes he would go off and join some other band, but such conduct was not considered good form and he usually set up his establishment on some small hill near the home camp and made the best of the situation. If he conducted himself properly he was usually soon forgiven and restored to his rights in the community. If he went off to another people he lost all standing among the Sioux and was thereafter treated as an outlaw and a renegade. The entire band of Inkpaduta, once the terror of the Dakota frontier, was composed of these outlaws.⁵

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.