the natives were invited. After eating and smoking several hundred painted sticks were produced and were offered for the acceptance of each grown warrior. It was understood that whoever voluntarily accepted one of these sticks was solemnly bound to be of the hunting party under penalty of punishment by the soldiers if he failed. About one hundred and fifty men accepted. These men then detached themselves from the main body and after consultation selected ten of the bravest and most influential of the young men to act as members of the hunting court. These justices were called soldiers. Every member bound himself to obey all rules made by the court. A time was then fixed for the start. At the appointed time and place every one appeared but one man who lived twelve miles distant. Five of the court at once started out to round him up. In a few hours they returned with the recalcitrant and his family, and with his belongings packed upon his horses. He was duly penitent and not subjected to punishment, though he was severely threatened in case he again failed. General Sibley thus tells the story.⁸ "We," Sibley and his white friends, "became subject to the control of the soldiers. At the close of each day the limits of the following day's hunt were announced by the soldiers, designated by a stream, grove, or other natural object. This limit was ordinarily about ten miles ahead of the proposed camping place and the soldiers each morning went forward and stationed themselves along the line to detect and punish any who attempted to pass it. The penalty attached to any violation of the rules of the camp was discretionary with the soldiers. In aggravated cases they would thresh the offender unmercifully. Sometimes they would cut the clothing of the man or woman entirely to pieces, slit down the lodge with their knives, break kettles and do other damage. I was made the victim on one occasion by venturing near the prohibited boundary. A soldier hid himself in the long grass until I approached sufficiently near when he sprang from his concealment and giving the soldiers' whoop rushed upon me. He seized my fine double barreled gun and raised it in the air as if with the intention of dashing it to the ground. I reminded him that guns were not to be broken, because they could be neither repaired or replaced. He handed me back the gun and then snatched my fur cap from my head, ordering me back to camp, where he said he would cut up my lodge in the evening. I had to ride ten miles bareheaded on a cold winter day, but to resist a soldier while in the discharge of duty is considered disgraceful in the extreme. When I reached the lodge I told Faribault of the predicament in which I was placed. We concluded the best policy, would be to prepare a feast to mollify them. We got together all the best things we could muster and when the soldiers arrived in the evening we went out and invited them to a feast in our lodge. The temptation was too strong to be resisted." They responded, ate their fill, smoked and forgave the "contempt of court," which indicates that the judiciary, even in that primitive time, was not wholly incorruptible.

The modern Sioux Courts, organized under the authority of federal law and in accordance with the rules of the Indian Department, are perhaps of more interest to lawyers than the courts of the primitive tribes. The modern courts were first proposed by General William S. Harney, in 1856 and were provided for in the treaty made at Port Pierre in March of that year, which unfortunately was not ratified by the senate.⁹ It can scarcely be doubted that had Harney's scheme for making the Sioux responsible to the government for the conduct of their own people