son at Fort Snelling advised them to live in peace with their neighbors; but in their private intercourse with military men and others, the Dakotas learned that he who had performed the greatest exploits in war was most highly esteemed by them. The Dakotas might be told that it was wrong to kill women and children, but he who had the most eagle feathers on his head was sure to attract the most attention and also to be treated with the greatest consideration.

MARRIAGE CUSTOMS.

There were few formalities attending marriage, except the contract for the purchase of the bride. Wives were purchased, and it was as disreputable for a young woman to become the wife of one who had not purchased her, as it is with us for a woman to cohabit with a man without the ceremony of marriage. It was not, however, considered so disgraceful for a widow or a divorced woman to marry without being purchased. Women did not consider it disgraceful to be bought and sold. The higher the price paid for them, the better they were pleased, for the payment of a great price proved that they were esteemed valuable.

It is probable that the wishes of the young women were generally consulted, and that a due regard was paid to their preferences in making arrangements for their marriage, but not always. They were sometimes compelled to marry men whom they disliked, but probably no means of compulsion were used that are not sometimes employed for the same purpose among civilized people. Parents were not in the habit of dealing harshly with their children, and it was not safe to drive a spirited girl to extremities, as she might elope with one who was able to protect her; or, if there were no other way to escape, the gate of death stood always open and she might commit suicide. Though this was seldom done, it happened often enough to serve as a salutary warning to those who had young women to dispose of in marriage.

Doubtless there was commonly a mutual understanding and agreement between the parties to be married, but not always; and women were not unwilling to marry men with whom they were little acquainted, provided they liked their appearance and knew that they had a good reputation. Girls did not by any means admit that they had nothing to do in selecting their partners for

life, and parents sometimes complained that their daughters were too fastidious in the choice of husbands.

Brothers claimed the right to dispose of their sisters in marriage, but where there were no brothers or none of a suitable age, parents or other relatives made the marriage contract. None paid so much for their wives as Jacob did for Rachel, but the young women generally brought higher prices than young men were able to pay without the aid of their friends. As among white men, so among the Dakotas, a lover might fail to obtain the object of his choice because he was not so rich as some of his neighbors. There was also another resemblance between the civilized and the savage, that a man might, after performing some warlike exploit, obtain for almost nothing the girl who had been refused when he offered a good price for her, military renown being accepted in lieu of other qualifications.

Almost any kind of property might be given in exchange for a wife, such as horses, guns, cloth, kettles, etc. When a man wished to purchase a wife, if he had not property enough of his own, he solicited contributions from his friends, and, gathering all together, carried and deposited them by the house where the woman whom he wished to purchase resided. If they were accepted, the bargain was soon completed, and the marriage consummated without further ceremony. If they were rejected, they were taken back and restored to the original owners. But if the woman and her friends could not agree either to accept or refuse the offer, the goods were left sometimes for several days awaiting a decision, until notice was given that the offer was accepted or rejected. In arriving at a decision, more regard was generally had to the character of the man than to the value of his presents.

The bridegroom, if a young man, took up his abode at the residence of the bride, and whatever game he killed was carried there. The reputation of a skillful and industrious hunter was, as it ought to be, a great help to him in obtaining a wife.

After marriage, a man was not permitted to look his wife's father or mother in the face, speak their names, or address his conversation directly to either of them. If it was necessary for him to speak of or to either of them, he used the plural instead of the singular number, and, in speaking to them, used the third

instead of the second person. The same rule was observed by the parents in addressing or speaking of their sons-in-law or daughtersin-law, and by the woman toward the parents of her husband. This whimsical prohibition, so far as speaking the name was concerned, extended to a large circle of relatives, so that often when one asked the name of another, he was prevented from telling it by this absurd custom.

It is difficult to imagine any reason they could have for the adoption of such a rule, but this custom was not peculiar to the Dakotas. Intermarriages were not allowed within the circle of relatives embraced by this prohibition, that is, it was held improper for two persons to be joined in marriage who were not permitted to speak each other's names.

Women, especially young women, seldom spoke the names of their husbands, but many of the old women did not hesitate to do When it was necessary for a woman to speak of her husband, if she had children she would say, "This child's father," or "My child's father." Neither men nor women liked to tell their own

So.

names.

Polygamy was not general among the Dakotas, a single wife being the rule, and polygamy the exception. Among the Medawakantonwan less than one tenth, and perhaps not more than one twentieth, had more than one wife at a time, in remarkable contrast with the polygamy which Julius Caesar described as prevailing among our British ancestors.

The extent to which polygamy generally existed among the Dakotas at any time depended upon the relative number of men and women. If the number of the men was about equal to that of the women, not many of them would have more than one wife, for very few would live without wives. But if many of the men should have been lost in battle or in any other way, so that their number should not nearly equal that of the women, polygamy would prevail just in proportion to the lack of men, for few of the women would live long unmarried. Polygamy was not popular with the Dakotas, and they generally spoke of it as undesirable, but it existed more or less in every band.

The wives of a polygamist could seldom live together in peace, and if a man were to take more than one wife, it was thought best to marry sisters because they were less likely to quarrel than

women between whom there were no ties of blood relationship. Few Indian women would have been reconciled to polygamy if it had not been for the great help women were to each other, especially when on the hunting expeditions.

The Dakotas, both men and women, learned to maintain on almost all occasions an appearance of stoical apathy. We could not expect lovers among them to be very demonstratiye, but evidently many husbands and wives were very much attached to each other. The attachment of some, however, if they had any, did not last long. It was not an uncommon thing for married persons to separate after living together a short time. These separations were sometimes final, but often the husband returned after a short absence. The young husband frequently left his wife, not because he was dissatisfied with her, but because he disliked her relatives or was homesick, for the husband and wife often belonged to different villages. Separations and reconciliations might be repeated several times, and finally the parties might live together permanently. If they did not forsake each other utterly before they had homes and families of their own, they were likely to live together till death separated them.

SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITION OF WOMEN.

The women were often abused and had hard service to perform, but neither wives nor daughters were treated as slaves. They had their acknowledged rights, and spirit to maintain them. In many respects they were treated by the men as equals, and participated with them in their most solemn religious festivals. They had no voice in the public councils, but they contrived to make themselves heard at home, and I have known them to remove a camp in spite of the remonstrances of the men. In theory, each man ruled in his own house (or rather family, for the house belonged to the woman); and this theory was carried out in practice about as well as it is with their white neighbors. The wife did not break her promise to obey her husband, for she never made any vows to either break or keep; but he was as likely to be ruled by her as she by him. In an actual fight between husband and wife, he was pretty sure to come off conqueror, for, if she was too strong for him, he seized his weapons of war; but their quarrels did not always proceed to blows, and in a war of words she was at least a

match for him. If she was not able to fight with him, she had a great many ways of convincing him that it was best for him to keep the peace with her. It required but a slight acquaintance with the Dakotas, to discover that, as a general thing, the women were not afraid of their husbands. Indeed, Dakota women, old or young, are not the right material to be made slaves.

It is true that the women were feminine in their disposition. Squaws are not generally amazons or furies. With rare exceptions, they are not masculine in their dispositions, habits, or aspirations. Very few of them manifest any inclination to meddle with fire-arms or other weapons, even when it may seem necessary, er to engage in hunting, trapping, or fishing. Girls show no disposition to play with bows and arrows, and, though I have seen them fishing from necessity, they seemed to take no delight in it. They were indefatigable in their search for wild berries and other wild fruits, but to the wild game they gave little attention till it was laid down at their doors. The women were always armed with knives, and, if attacked, doubtless defended themselves as well as they could but they were always women, and, when frightened, obeyed the natural instincts of the sex and shrieked for help. Even the language spoken by the women differed from that of the men, so that by reading a single sentence of a letter one can tell whether it was written by a male or a female. In a word, the difference in disposition and habits, between men and women, was as great among Indians as among us.

But though the women differed from the men, they were not held in subjection by them. Though feminine, they were not imbecile in body or mind. Hardened by the exercise of their rude labors, and armed with fortitude and resolution, they did not tamely submit to what they considered unjust treatment. The woman was acknowledged owner of the tent and nearly all that was in it. Her husband might desert her and take his gun and traps along with him, but he could not turn her out of the house, or take her children from her if they chose to stay with her. She might be left in destitute circumstances, but her neighbors would not suffer her nor her children to starve.

Young women, when first married, were usually for a considerable time, frequently for several years, under the protection of their parents and brothers and sisters, and the husband was per