If the killed and the killer are both of the same band and equally strong in relationship perhaps nothing would be done at the time as the rest of camp would endeavor to stop a skirmish, and a good many guns, horses, and other property would be raised and presented the relatives of the deceased to stop further bloodshed. This generally concludes an amnesty or respite for the time, but the revenge must be accomplished at some time by the next of kin, otherwise it would be a great disgrace to him or them. An opportunity to kill the offender with comparative safety is then sought, perhaps for years, or as long as any of that generation lives. Time and absence may have the effect of giving the murderer a chance to die in some other way or of diminishing the force of the revenge so that he does not find himself in a position to act with any degree of safety when an occasion offers. Yet, if of standing in camp, and a brother, father, or brother-in-law to the deceased, he is bound to revenge at some time, though they make no scruple to receive presents of horses, etc., to refrain in the meantime. Thus the death of a man is never paid for by that generation, though by that means the revenge may be delayed for some years, which is all they can do except surrendering up their relative to the incensed party, which would not for a moment be thought of. We have known three or four horses to be given on the instant by the friends of the offender to those of the deceased and the same to be repeated yearly for two to six years and more, yet still revenge was consummated. On one occasion I asked the man why he killed the other after so long a time and taking property as payment from his relatives and friends. He answered that the pay was well enough as long as the culprit kept out of his sight; that remuneration only destroyed the disposition to seek him out and kill him, although it did not affect the right to revenge if he was fool enough, to thrust himself in his way.