MOTHERRIGHT 297 



and that " without reference to any council ; but it is 

 quite certain that he must have obtained the acquies- 

 cence of his house-chiefs if he intended the whole 

 family to participate. In fact, the stories speak of 

 meetings en masse to ' talk over ' important questions. 

 For each household into which a family was sub- 

 divided was a family in miniature, over which the 

 house-chiefs power was almost absolute. Once having 

 obtained his position, he was only limited by the other 

 chiefs and the barriers raised by custom. He could call 

 his nephews together to make war on his own account. 

 . . . Success in amassing property generally governed 

 the selection of a new chief of the town the family 

 or the house. It might be the brother, own nephew, 

 or a more distant relation, of the predecessor. Two 

 are known to have succeeded to one position. The 

 election seems to have been a foregone conclusion ; 

 but in so far as any choice was exercised, it appears 

 to have rested in the case of a family or town- 

 chief with the house-chiefs, while the sentiment of a 

 household probably had weight in deciding between 

 claimants to a doubtful position in a single house. 

 Only the town-chiefs own family had anything directly 

 to say about his election. A chief's household was 

 made up of those of his own immediate family who 

 had no places for themselves, his nephews his retainers 

 or servants, and the slaves. A man's sisters' sons 

 were his right-hand men. They, or at least one of 

 them, came to live with him when quite young, were 

 trained by him, and spoke or acted for him in all 

 social matters. The one who it was expected would 

 succeed him was often his son-in-law as well." 1 

 1 S wanton, Jesup Exped. v. 66, 63, 68, 69. 



