540 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. 



ing passage from Bancroft concerning certain North American 

 savages, well illustrates the distinction : 



&quot;Captain Cook found among the Ahts very * strict notions of their 

 having a right to the exclusive property of everything that their 

 country produces, so that they claimed pay for even wood, water, and 

 grass. The limits of tribal property are very clearly denned, but indi 

 viduals rarely claim any property in land. Houses belong to the men 

 who combine to build them. Private wealth consists of boats and 

 implements for obtaining food, domestic utensils, slaves, and blankets.&quot; 

 A like condition is shown us by the Comanches : 



&quot; They recognize no distinct rights of meum and tuum, except to per 

 sonal property ; holding the territory they occupy, and the game that 

 depastures upon it, as common to all the tribe : the latter is appro 

 priated only by capture.&quot; 



And the fact that among these Comanches, as among other 

 peoples, &quot; prisoners of war belong to the captors, and may be 

 sold or released at their will,&quot; further shows that the right of 

 property is asserted where it is easily defined. Of the 

 Brazilian Indians, again, Von Martius tells us that, 



&quot; Huts and utensils are considered as private property ; but even with 

 regard to them certain ideas of common possession prevail. The same 

 hut is often occupied by more families than one ; and many utensils are 

 the joint property of all the occupants. Scarcely anything is considered 

 strictly as the property of an individual except his arms, accoutrements, 

 pipe, and hammock.&quot; 



Dr. Eink s account of the Esquimaux shows that among 

 them, too, while there is joint ownership of houses made 

 jointly by the families inhabiting them, there is separate 

 ownership of weapons, fishing boats, tools, etc. Thus it is 

 made manifest that private right, completely recognized 

 where recognition of it is easy, is partially recognized where 

 partial recognition only is possible where the private rights 

 of companions are entangled with it. Instances of other 

 kinds equally prove that among savages claims to possession 

 are habitually marked off when practicable : if not fully, yet 

 partially. Of the Chippewayans &quot;who have no regular 

 government &quot; to make laws or arbitrate, we yet read that, 

 &quot; In the former instance [when game is taken in inclosures by a nunt- 

 iiig party], the game is divided among those who have been engaged iu 



