position, a sub-chief has more or less usurped his power and influence,
without actually upsetting his chieftainship or supplanting him in
his performance of ceremonial duties.

If the chief on acquiring office by inheritance is a child, or not
qualified to act (_e.g._, unmarried), he is nevertheless chief; but
some person will usually act as his guardian, and perform his functions
for him until he has qualified. This person will probably be one of the
young chief's eldest male paternal relations (_e.g._, the eldest living
brother of the last previous chief), and will presumably be a person
of consequence; but he will not necessarily be one of the sub-chiefs.

All the above observations concerning the hereditary nature of a
chief's office and subsequently explained matters apply also to the
case of a sub-chief, except that there is no ceremony on his resigning
office in favour of his successor, and that the usurpation of the
office of a sub-chief, of the occurrence of which I found no record,
would perhaps be more difficult of accomplishment. In the event of
a village throwing off an offshoot village, or itself splitting up
into two villages, the then existing sub-chief of the original village
would continue his office in it or, in case of a division, in one of
the villages resulting from the split, and the other village would have
for its sub-chief some one of the _ake-baibe_ of the original village,
probably the one who was most active in organising the split. On
the other hand, if several villages united into one, one only of
their sub-chiefs could be sub-chief of the village arising from the
amalgamation, and the others would sink to the rank of _ake-baibe_.

The observations concerning the hereditary nature of a chiefs rank
also apply to the _ake-baibe_. I have no information concerning them