Meanwhile the objects to be aimed at and the measures to be taken in the ensuing open season of 1887-8 were occupying the Chief Commissioner. Mr. Hildebrand was invited to Mandalay, and the subject was fully discussed and settled in consultation with him. The main lines of the policy to be followed in relation to the States were defined. The conditions upon which the chiefs were to hold their States under the British Government were determined and embodied in a patent, or _sanad_, to use the Indian term, for the greater chiefs, and in a letter of appointment for the lesser. By the _sanad_ the recipient was recognized as a feudatory chief and empowered to govern his territories in all matters whether criminal, civil, or revenue, and was authorized to nominate for the approval of the Government a fit person according to Shan usage to be his successor. These privileges were made subject to certain conditions, one of which was the payment of a tribute, settled for five years at the amount previously paid to the King, and liable to revision thereafter. The forests and royalties on all minerals and precious stones were reserved to the Government. Order was to be maintained by the chief, the rights and customs of the people were to be respected, and trade protected. All disputes arising between one State and another were to be referred to the Superintendent, at whose headquarters the chief was to maintain an agent or representative. The order of appointment given to the lesser men bound them to pay the revenue assessed by the Superintendent, and in all matters connected with the administration of their districts to conform to the instructions and orders issued by the Chief Commissioner or the Superintendent. It was decided that each chief or ruler, whether known by the title of Sawbwa or some lesser designation, should be required to appear in person, to make a declaration of allegiance, and to subscribe to the terms of his _sanad_. Where there were rival claimants, weight was to be given to the _fait accompli_, and to considerations of expediency rather than to those of abstract right or justice. It was not held incumbent on the British Government to go behind existing facts or to inquire how the man in possession came by his power, provided he appeared to be a person capable of maintaining order.