Their power does not appear to have an absolute character, and they do not seem to have any way of compelling obedience in case of resistance.Nevertheless obedience is rendered them, and they command with authority, [even though] their commands have the force merely of requests, and the obedience rendered them appears entirely voluntary....Although the Chiefs -- except in a few particular instances -- bear no outward marks of distinction or of superiority, -- so much so that one cannot distinguish them from the people by any honours one needs to render them, -- there is yet no lack of a certain respect paid them.It is, however, on public occasions, above all, that their dignity is exalted.The councils assemble on their orders, the meeting being held in their [the Chiefs'] homes (cabanes) unless there is available a public hall, like our City Halls, specially set aside for council meetings; business is conducted in their name; they preside at all kinds of meeting; they have a considerable part in festive occasions and in the general distributions....For fear that the Chiefs might usurp too much authority, and try to take on unlimited powers, they are 'bridled' as it were, by the assignment to them of coadjutants (Adjoints) who share with them the sovereignty over the land; and these are called Agoianders by them....Next in authority to the Agoianders is the Senate, composed of senior members of the community of Elders, called in their language Agokstenha: the number of these senators is not a fixed one -- any one has the right to enter this council to give it his vote.' [Millar should have continued the quotation to include, 'whenever he has achieved the maturity of years, understanding and knowledge of affairs that would make him deserving of this privilege, etc.'] P.Jos.Fr.Lafitau, Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains, 4to ?Paris, 1724, tom.i, pp.472-475[4 vol.ed., also Paris, 1724, tom.ii, pp.173-6].
15.'Responsibility for dealing with criminal affairs belong immediately to those of the kin-group [cabane] of the guilty parties, with respect to [out of regard for?] the guilty themselves, when anyone has killed a fellow member of his own kin-group.As it is assumed that the right over life and death belong to the parties mutually involved, the village appears not to be concerned with the disorder which has arisen....The matter takes on an entirely different character, however, when murder has been committed involving a member of another cabane, of another tribe or village, or even more, of a foreign nation; for then this death by violence becomes the concern of the entire community.Everyone takes sides with the deceased, and this contributes, in a manner, toward the restitution of the spirit --such is their expression -- to the relatives aggrieved by the loss which they have sustained.All are at the same time interested in saving the life of the offender and in protecting his relatives from the vengeance of the others, which would not fail to break out sooner or later if one had failed to make the proper satisfaction prescribed for such cases by their laws and by their customs.There are, however, occasions where the crime is considered so heinous that one is no longer concerned with the protection of the murderer, and the Council, using its supreme authority, takes pains to effect his punishment.' Ibid.pp.486f., 490, 495 [respectively II, pp.185 f., 189, 193,] Also, tom.
