ic duties, had no time to till the tracts to which,
as members of a gens, they would be entitled, had the same tilled for
them by communal labor. This was not an act of vassalage, but a payment
for public duties.

This is a very brief statement of their customs as regards holding of
lands. It gives us an insight into the workings of ancient society. It
shows us what a strong feature of this society was the gens, and we see
how necessary it is to understand the nature of a gens before attempting
to understand ancient society. We see that, among the civilized nations
of Mexico and Central America, they had not yet risen to the conception
of ownership in the soil. No chief, or other officer, held large
estates. The possessory right in the soil was vested in the gens
composing the tribe, and they in turn granted to individuals certain
definite lots for the purpose of culture. A chief had no more right
in this direction than a common warrior. We can easily see how the
Spaniards made their mistake. They found a community of persons holding
land in common, which the individuals could not alienate. They noticed
one person among them whom the others acknowledged as chief. They
immediately jumped to the conclusion that this chief was a great "lord,"
that the land was a "feudal estate," and that the persons who held it
were "vassals" to the aforesaid "lord."<23>

We must now consider the subject of laws, and the methods of enforcing
justice amongst the civilized nations. The laws of the Mexicans, like
those of most barbarous people, are apt to strike us as being very
severe; but good reasons, according to their way of thinking, exist for
such severity. The gens is the unit of social organization; which fact
must be constantly borne in mind in considering their laws. In civilized
society, the State assumes protection of person and property; but, in a
tribal state of society, this protection is afforded by the gens. Hence,
"to wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to support a person was to
stand behind him with the entire array of his gentile kindred."

The punishment for theft varied according to the value of the article
stolen. If it were small and could be returned, that settled the matter.
In cases of greater value it was different. In some cases the thief
became bondsman for the original owner. In still others, he suffered
death. This was the case where he stole articles set aside for
religion--such as gold and silver, o