waters of the streams or creeks of the county may be made available to the full extent of the capacity thereof for irrigation purposes, so that the same do not materially affect or impair the rights of the prior proprietor, but in no case shall the same be diverted or turned from the natural channel, ditches or canals of such proprietors so as to render the same unavailable. This shall not impair or interfere with the rights of parties to the use of the waters of such stream or creek acquired before its passage.”

In connection with artesian wells, a few legislative acts provided some money, as has already been shown, but all endeavors lacked system, and the people were not interested.

With the rapid development of irrigation it is hardly surprising that there should be some litigation. In 1884 the case of Thorpe versus Tenem Ditch Company excited much interest. Thorpe made a homestead filing in 1874, the land was surveyed in 1874, and the Tenem Ditch was completed in 1875. The beneficiaries of the plaintiff claimed to have appropriated two-thirds of the water of Tenem Creek in 1873. Thorpe claimed that his homestead settlement on unsurveyed land through which the Tenem Creek ran invested him with the rights of riparian owner. An appropriation was made by the defendant before his filing, and for that reason they held that he (Thorpe) was not riparian owner. The company claimed to have been the first appropriators, since the United States cannot be said to have disposed of land under the preëmption law until final proof and payment; and not under the homestead laws until final proof of the homesteader. In the Superior Court the decision was given in favor of Thorpe, but the case was appealed to the State Supreme Court, and in 1889-1890 this court reversed the decision on the ground "that the appropriator of the flow of water over the public lands of the United States has by local custom which is recognized by the United States a vested right therein which cannot be defeated by one who, having consented to such appropriation, subsequently files homestead entry and obtains a patent for the land. Conceding that the statutes of Washington Territory of 1873 do not extend the right to appropriate waters to any except land-owners, they are not intended to restrict the right of prior appropriation as it existed by local customs and under decisions of the courts, by which it was immaterial whether the appropriator was a land-owner or not." (Washington Reports, Vol. I, p. 560.)

Another case of interest came up on November 17, 1894, growing out of the question of riparian right. One Henry Isaacs had, in 1861, diverted water for the running of a mill. In 1863 the land around

this had been purchased by Artemus Dodge, who, in 1865, received a patent. When in 1896 Isaacs used more water, it worked a hardship on the irrigators, whence the case of George Barber versus Henry Isaacs was given in favor of Isaacs, on the ground that the act of July 26, 1868, "merely recognized the custom then existing, and persons acquiring land before that act took the land subject to the right of prior appropriation in the waters of the stream running through or by such lands."

One other case of interest was that of Benton versus Johncox. Benton was a riparian proprietor on the Ahtanum Creek, as were also many others. Later, settlers came in farther up the Ahtanum and some settled on bench land. These diverted water to irrigate their lands, and the surplus water taken to the bench land was not returned to the creek. Benton instituted action to "restrain certain of the appellants from diverting the waters of said stream and conducting the same to land situated at a distance therefrom for the purpose of irrigation. (Washington Reports, Vol. XVII, p. 277.) Many riparian owners joined the plaintiff in claiming the relief sought. The Superior Court awarded a "perpetual injunction restraining each and every one of the non-riparian owners of land from diverting or interfering with the water of the stream." In this case the Supreme Court sustained the lower court in its decision, on the ground that the making of valuable improvements, and the ownership of land and the appropriation of water, does not destroy the right of the riparian ROSE M. BOening.

owner.

[To be continued]

SLAVERY AMONG THE INDIANS OF NORTHWEST

AMERICA

Slavery in some form or other has existed in this world throughout all times known to man, and there is evidence to show that it prevailed in those long periods of developing eras prior to the beginnings of any recorded history. It is not the purpose of this paper to try to show the beginnings of this pernicious institution nor to explain how it had its origin in the experiences of men, and yet, as a sort of introduction to my subject, Slavery Among the Indians, I wish to read a quotation from the History of Germany, written by Tacitus about eighteen hundred years ago. It reads very much like a paragraph out of some of the journals of the early explorers of the Northwest Coast of America many centuries later. Tacitus, writing of these early Germans, says: "Of public diversions they have but one sort, and in all of their meetings the same is still exhibited. Young men, such as make it their pastime, fling themselves naked and dance amongst sharp swords and the deadly points of javelins. From habit they acquire their skill, and from their skill a graceful manner; yet from hence draw no gain or hire; though the adventurous gaiety has its reward — namely, that of pleasing the spectators. velous, playing at dice is one of their most serious employments, and even sober they are gamesters; and, nay, so desperately do they venture upon the chance of winning or losing that when their whole substance is played away they stake their liberty and their persons upon one and the last throw. The loser goes calmly into voluntary bondage. However younger he be, however stronger, he tamely suffers himself to be bound and sold by the winner. Such is their perseverance in an evil course; they themselves call it honor.

What is mar

His

"Slaves of this class, they exchange away in commerce, to free themselves too from the shame of such a victory. Of their other slaves they make not such use as we do of ours, by distributing amongst them the several offices and employments of the family. Each of them has a dwelling of his own, each a household to govern. lord uses him like a tenant, and obliges him to pay a quantity of grain or of cattle or of cloth. Thus far the subserviency of the slave extends. All the other duties in a family, not the slaves but the wives and children discharge. To inflict stripes upon a slave, or to put him in chains, or to doom him to severe labor, are things rarely seen. To kill them they sometimes are wont, not through correction or

government, but in heat and rage, as they would an enemy, save that no vengeance or penalty follows. The freedmen very little surpass the slaves, rarely are of moment in the house — in the community never, excepting only such nations where arbitrary dominion prevails.”

It must be evident, I think, that in any discussion at this time of the subject of slavery among the Indians that we are forced to rely almost entirely on the journals and writings of the early explorers, travelers, traders and missionaries. The Indians have left us very few records of any kinds and no written history and the rapidly advancing tide of the white man's civilization is changing the manners and customs of the red man of the forests, and at the same time removing, changing and burying under new deposits all the oldtime evidences. But the journals and writings of these early explorers have preserved, we have reason to believe, a fairly correct picture of the conditions which they found. And there is an abundance of such material. There were many men who dared to take their cnance in lands unknown to white men, and who endured the hardships thereto, some in the love of adventure and to satisfy their restless, roving spirits, some in the interests of trade for the explorer is quickly followed by men whose minds are centered on profit and trade some whose minds and hearts were burning with religious flame, ready to make any sacrifice that the tribes might by written in the Lamb's Book of God. Among these explorers, traders and missionaries were some mighty heroes, really great men living up to the highest ideals of life with its manifold duties and sacrifices, men of truth and integrity. Then there were men of a very different type, men who were influenced solely by purposes of selfish gain, who mistreated the Indians cruelly,, often murdering and destroying them ruthlessly. We have the journals and experiences not only of men comprising these two extreme classes that I have mentioned, but also of the men who would in a proper classification fall between these two extremes. We have to bear in mind, then, that the sources of our information on these manners and customs of early tribal life come to us from the writings and journals of two kinds of men: one from those who are strong and mighty for the truth; the other, those who are mighty big liars.

In general it can be said that most of the data that is available on the life, manners, customs, institutions and government of the Indians of the Northwest is generally considered as fairly authentic and reliable. Furthermore, it is an interesting and refreshing fact that practically all of the accounts agree on essentials. We have to use caution, however, in not making conclusions too quickly, since

our writer may have been limited to a small field of observation, or have given too short a time to the investigation, or perhaps overemphasized some rather unusual incident.

Practically every man, whether explorer, traveler, trader or missionary, who left any account of his experiences in the Northwest Coast at least mentions slavery among the Indians. There can be no doubt that slavery as an institution existed at some time or other in some form or other in most of the tribes north of northern California, all the way to northern Alaska.

'Among the Eskimos slavery was unknown, although in Alaska immediately north of the Thlingits, where the Indians borrowed much of Indian culture and arts, it is possible that it existed in some form as Bancroft affirms." (Handbook of American Indians.)

Dall states that he found no traces of slavery in Alaska and doubts if it ever existed there. He further says that if slavery gained a foothold in Alaska it was foreign to their own culture and habits and was comparatively recent in introduction.

Livingston F. Jones in his book A Study of the Thlingets of Alaska gives quite an account of slavery in this tribe. He says, page 116, writing in 1914: "Slavery is another of their obsolete customs. It was at the bottom of most of their wars, as they were conducted chiefly to obtain slaves. There are living today [1914] not a few who were once held as slaves. They and their children are still looked down upon by those who never had the misfortune to come within the grasp of slavery."

"A full third of the large population of this coast are slaves, of the most helpless and abject description." So writes Bancroft in his History of Alaska.

"While free men and women captured in war were made slaves, many were born into bondage. None but the high caste, however, were allowed to hold slaves, and the chiefs were, as a matter of course, the largest slaveholders."-Jones.

We will remember that the general name given to all the Indians living along the coast north of 55° (about the location of Ketchikan) to 60° (in the region about Skagway) is Thlingets. North of the Thlingets and extending into the interior are the Tinneh. Along the southern and western coasts, including the Aleutian Islands and the Peninsula, are the Aleuts, while the shores of Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean are the abodes of the Eskimos. That part of the coast region, with its thousands of islands, south of the Thlingets, between 55° and 52° was the home of the Haidah. This is the nation that lived in the Queen Charlotte Island country. Coming on south into