ORIGIN N.. O F JURISDICTIO N. ORIGINALLY the fubjects of property were common to all the people connected together by motives of self-preservation and mutual defence. That conception of right in certain distinguished perfons to regulate the distribution of the common food, had, in its natural operation upon the human mind, a powerful tendency toward the establishment of regular government. While the means of fubfiftence confifted of the fpoils of the chace, and the natural productions of the earth, independent of culture or care, common property and common food * were fyno nimous terms. In this refpect, a material alteration in point of political arrangement happened, when mankind had learned the art of taming cattle, and derived from them the chief means of fubfiftence. Still the flock of the horde was common property. Every tribe or family lived together in close confederacy, and moved in a body with their herds and flocks, which were the objects of their joint care and protection. In like manner, when societies, becoming stationary, had attached themfelves to particular allotments or portions of territory, and depended for their maintenance partly upon the productions of the foil by application of labour, the crop raifed by the joint exertions of the community muft naturally have been confidered as the property of the whole fociety. Therefore a right of exclufive property in individuals, being as unneceffary as it was inconfiftent with the dictates of natural' law, received no fupport from the fentiments of the people. The fmall focieties into which the people were divided, poffeffing in common cer tain tain tracts of territory limited by the Rei, or Chief; the fubject of common poffeffion obtained among the antient Celts the name of Coir, or common land. PRIOR to the establishment of exclufive property, either in an individual or in a certain number of men formed into a community, no difputes of a civil nature could have happened. Personal injuries and affronts, however, must have frequently existed. There being no tribunal to redress wrongs, every man was himself the judge of the degree of injury he received: the feverity of his vengeance was measured by his feelings of refentment. The American Indian acknowledges no right in any individual of his tribe to direct or control his actions: there is no public authority established to enforce to enforce punishment. The chiefs affume not the power of checking revenge, nor do they think themselves intitled to moderate its exceffive feverity. Every man enjoys the most perfect freedom. If a chief were to attempt to inflict punishment, the obnoxious perfon, attached to no particular place of refidence, would fly into the woods, or join another tribe, and become the enemy of his natural friends: fo that every individual is confidered to be the avenger of the wrongs by which he is affected*. The governing law is the natural one of retaliation, which, it is expected by the offender, will be inflicted as foon as a favourable opportunity offers itself to the injured party. THE difcovery of the art of taming and rearing cattle, and the experience of the great increase of the means of fubfiftence thence derived, must have had the effect of converting much of the attention of the community to the cultivation of that art. The animal fubdued into tamenefs was no longer the prey of the hunter, but became, with its offspring, a *See Carver's Travels. freth fresh acceffion of wealth to a particular fociety. PROPERTY being established in a community, different ideas upon the fubject of punishment began to prevail. When an act of violence was committed by a member of one tribe or family against that of another, by which great. injury was fuftained, or death enfued; the law of retaliation fell into difufe: the extravagance of private revenge was checked by that mode of punishment which we find to have prevailed. univerfally among pastoral nations. An atonement for the lofs of a member of the community was made, not by the death of the offender, but by a fine or penalty paid in cattle; which being an acceffion of wealth to the injured tribe, by an increase of the common ftock of provisions, was deemed a just compenfation for the loss fustained. Every tribe became answerable for the good behaviour of all its members; fo that the commiffion of crimes occafioned the increase |