The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1877-02-10
Righl. q PI0psrtT Among ths EsqnImanr.

/ . = A'7Frsr4fs-f-t
OF every seal caught at the winter sta.
tion small pieces of flesh, with propor-
tionate share of blubber, were distributed
among the place-fellows. In this way the
very poorest could never want for seal.
meat or lamp-oil, provided the usual can /.
ture Of seals did not fall There could be
no Esquimaux Jack Horners sitting on the
ledge Of the house all alone aud manching
the seal which they had been fortunate
enough to harpoon. Beyond the confines
Of the district inhabited BY such a com.
nunity any one was at liberty to set up his
house and hunt and fish; and every one,
whether in community or out oft. 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 stone upon it to mark It as his
own. II seal was harpooned, and es-
capped with the harpoon sticking in il. il
belonged to the harpooner, SO long as the
bladder was attached TO the harpoon. If
two hunters at the same time hit seal or
bird, it was their joint property, and was
equally divided. Whales, however. and
other large animals, as walrusses aud bears.
however captured, were considered com.
mon property, as being Of that size and
strength that, except in rare cases, they
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 property that another
had beyond necessary articles stand out so
prominently as in that which provided that
If another man borrowed the tools or wean-
ons Of another, and lost or injured them.
he was not bound to make any compensa.
ton to the owner for it was based On the
notion that if man had anything to spare
or to lend it was considered as superfuous.
and not held with the same right of nos.
session 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 GER
tain amount Of property was jealousy re-
garded 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 possessed
more than certain amount Of that prop
erty, his right to it 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 accumula-
tion of property led to a very natural re-
suit. Superhuous clothes or weapons rarely
existed, and even in the case Of KAYAKS,
though man might possess two of these
necessary boats, if he owned three the
third must be lent to some relative or
housemate. According to this view Of
political economy, anything that was not
used was regarded as idle and wasted, and
liable to forfeiture for the good of the
community.-Loadoa Quarterly Reoiec