It is difficult in the mining regions south of the Line to find satisfactory records as to how justice was administered to the Indian. The reservation system, as it was being applied in the Pacific Northwest, weakened the ancient tribal authority; the "subsidy plan" tended to alienate the people from the chiefs, and the presence of Agents lessened their prestige in the eyes of the young or of those inclined to be bad. The Agents, on their part, had no authority for the punishment of criminal acts. If they had possessed magisterial powers, both with regard to whites and Indians, justice might have been better administered. Local authorities had no jurisdiction over Indians who were on reservations, although they sometimes punished those who were off of them.[67] Only United States courts had full power, but these courts were slow in action, and could not be expected, moreover, to take cognizance of minor cases. Indian criminals, finally, were sometimes arrested by army officials and tried by army courts with scanty consideration.[68] For the Indian, indeed, there seems to have been at this period practically no real protection before the law in the American procedure. In case of Indian outbreak the British Columbia system aimed to punish offenders as individuals and not to take revenge on tribes. One of the marked features of the history of the Colony of British Columbia is that there was but one serious Indian outbreak during the colonial period.[69] This happened in April, 1864, when some Chilcotin Indians killed roadmakers and settlers to the number of fourteen. The whole tribe went on the warpath, but were subdued by volunteers from New Westminster and Cariboo. Rewards of $250 each were offered for the individual murderers, the aim being, as Governor Seymour expressed it, "to secure justice, not vengeance."[70] Too often, south of the Line, in case of Indian depredations, there was no discrimination between the tribe and guilty members of the tribe.[71] In the British Columbia Indian system, as we have before stated there was no policy of bestowing annuities or subsidies, although gifts were sometimes made for special reasons.[72] To the student of American Indian history special interest attaches in this connection to the judgment of Mr. William Duncan, a man of very great experience, wisdom, and success in his dealings with Indians. Mr. Duncan wrote as follows in 1875 from his mission at Metlakahtla: "In no matter affecting the Indians can the Government do more good or harm than in the matter of gifts. "Money may be spent to a large amount upon the Indians and yet tend only to alienate, dissatisfy, and impoverish them, if wrongly applied; whereas a small sum rightly administered will yield much good both to the Indians and the country at large.