Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1877-01-04
Property Among Esquimaux.

OF every seal caught at a winter sta
ton, small pieces of flesh, with proper
tiOnate share of blubber, were distributed
among all the place-fellows. In this way
the very poorest could never want for
seal-meat or lamp-oil provided the usual
capture Of seals did not fail. There could
be no Esquimaux JACK Horner, sitting on
the ledge of the house all alone, and
munching the seal which he had been
fortunate enough to harpoon. Beyond
the confines of the district inhabited by
such community, any one was at liberty
to set up his house and hunt and fish, and
every one, whether in community or out
of it, had the right to all drift-wood
which he found and was strong enough
to carry up on the shore above high
water mark, taking care to put a stone
upon it to mark it as his own. If seal
was harpOoned, and escaped with the
harpoon sticking in it, it belonged to the
harpOOner so long as the bladder was at
tached to the halpoon. If two hunters at
the same time hit a seal or bird, it was
their joint property, and was equally
divided. Whales, however, and other
large animals, as Walrusses and bears,
however captured, were considered COM
mon property, as being of that size and
l1dJ, CASCpJ III IdlG cases, GuGN
could only be secured by the united
strength Of the community. In case no
seals or other food were brought home to
a house, those families in it who were
best off for provisions invited the inmates,
but not the place-felloWs, to share their
meat with them. In no stipulation does
the common right to share all the prop
erty that another had beyond necessary
articles, stand out so prominently as in
that which provided that II one man
borrowed the tools or weapons of another
and lost or niured them, he was not bound
to make any compensation to the owner
for 1t was based on the notion that if a
man had anything to spare or to lend it
was considered as Supert1uOus, and not
held with the same right of possession as
his more necessary belongings, but, on
the contrary, as something to be classed
among those goods which were possessed
in common with others. In fact, we are
led to the conclusion that the right of any
Individual to hold more than a certain
amount of property was jealousy regard
ed by the rest of the community, who
did not scruple to borrow it and waste it.
No one could deprive any man of his
weapons or his clothes; but if he DOS
sessed more than a certain amount of that
property, his right passed away and be-
came vested rather in the community
who could use and wear it than in him
who could not. There was no room in
the Esquimaux code for the hundreds of
coats and waistcoats which fashionable
tailors send in to the account of silly
young men. This common sense view of
the accumulation of property led to a very
natural result. Superfiuous clothes or
weapons rarely existed, and even in the
case of kayaks, though man might pos
sess two of these necessary boats, if he
owned three, the third must be lent to
some relative or house-mate According
to this view of political economy, any
thing that was not used was regarded as
idle and wasted, and liable to forfeiture
for the good of the community.
Quarterly Re0Geao.