Formerly, this was an universal custom among the native Americans; but this, like every other usage of theirs, is wearing out apace. The West-Floridans, in order to keep their women subject to the law of adultery, bring some venison or buffalo’s flesh to the house of their normal wives, at the end of every winter’s hunt: that is reckoned a sufficient annual tye of their former marriages, although the husbands do not cohabit with them. The Muskóhge men, if newly married, are obliged by ancient custom, to get their own relations to hoe out the corn-fields of each of their wives, that their marriages may be confirmed: and the more jealous, repeat the custom every year, to make their wives subject to the laws against adultery. But the Indians in general, reckon that before the bridegroom can presume to any legal power over the bride, he is after the former ceremonies, or others something similar, obliged to go into the woods to kill a deer, bring home the carcass of venison, and lay it down at her house wrapt up in its skin; and if she opens the pack, carries it into the house, and then dresses and gives him some of it to eat with cakes before witnesses, she becomes his lawful wife, and obnoxious to all the penalties of an adultress. The Hebrews had another sort of marriage—by purchase: the bridegroom gave the father of the bride as much as he thought she was worth: and according to the different valuation, so sooner or later she went off at market. The only way to know the merit of a Hebrew lady, was to enquire the value for which her father would sell her, and the less rapacious he was, the sooner she might get an husband. Divine writ abounds with instances of the like kind; as Gen. xxxiv. 12. “Ask me never so much dowry and I will give it.” David bought Michal, and Jacob dearly purchased Rachel, &c. The women brought nothing with them, except their clothes, rings and bracelets, and a few trinkets. When the Indians would express a proper marriage, they have a word adapted according to their various dialects, to give them a suitable idea of it; but when they are {140} speaking of their sensual marriage bargains, they always term it, “buying a woman;” for example—they say with regard to the former, _Che-Awalas_, “I shall marry you,” the last syllable denotes the first person of the future tense, the former, “I shall make you, as _Awa_, or _Hewa_ was to _Ish_,” which is confirmed by a strong negative similar expression, _Che-Awala Awa_, “I shall not marry you.” But the name of their market marriages, is _Otoopha, Eho Achumbàras, Saookcháa_, “In the spring, I shall buy a woman, if I am alive.” Or _Eho Achumbàra Awa_, “I shall not buy a woman,” _Sàlbasa toogat_, “for indeed I am poor:” the former usage, and method of language is exactly calculated to express that singular custom of the Hebrews, per coemptionem.