sections of the country are described by Von Closen in the most charming manner. His reminiscences are full of historical interest, and are an important addition to the literature of the French in America during the Revolutionary War.

The evening session on Saturday began promptly at 8 o'clock at the Columbian University, with the Hon. John Jay, of New York, presiding. In a brief but comprehensive sketch Mr. Jay reviewed the work of the morning session and then introduced President Adams, who delivered an interesting inaugural address upon The Recent Historical Work of the Universities. He said that the first distinct professorship of history was established at Harvard University in 1839, for Jared Sparks. At Yale, as at other American colleges, history was long taught by means of text-books without much real enthusiasm. A great advance was made when Andrew D. White, fresh from original studies in France and Germany, entered upon an historical professorship in 1857, at the University of Michigan. From that institution President White's influence was transmitted to Cornell University, which developed the first distinct professorship of American history. Senator Hoar, after President Adams's address, called attention to the fact that Jared Sparks's lectures at Harvard University were largely upon American subjects, and were at the same time original contributions to American history. Mr. Adams reviewed the progress of historical science in the various countries of Europe, including Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, and France. His conclusion was, that the best advantages for historical study are now to be found in the schools of Paris, and that before the achievements of European universities American scholars find more to encourage humility than pride. Remarks were made upon President Adams's paper by President White. Professor Austin Scott, of Rutgers College, justly called attention to the works of the smaller colleges in America, and to the services of the late Professor Allen, of the University of Wisconsin, who was one of the most critical scholars and ablest teachers of history in this country.

After the inaugural address, Mendes Cohen, corresponding secretary of the Maryland Historical Society, gave an interesting account of the discovery of the Calvert papers in England, and of their recent publication in Baltimore. He exhibited to the Association the first volume, which has just appeared from the press. Mr. Cohen's statement of the progress of an impor

tant work undertaken by a State historical society perhaps foreshadows similar reports that may be presented at future meetings by delegates from the various historical societies of the United States and of Canada.

The Association re-assembled Monday morning, December 30, at half-past ten, in the National Museum, President Adams in the chair. The first paper was on "The Origin and Early History of our National Scientific Institutions," by Dr. G. Brown Goode, assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Goode reviewed the entire history of scientific and philosophical societies in this country, and gave special atten. tion to the development of literary and scientific institutions in the city of Washington. He called attention to the fact that, as early as 1775, when Washington was in his camp at Cambridge, Major Blodgett said to him that a national university ought to be erected in which the youth of the whole country might receive instruction. Washington replied, "Young man, you are a prophet, inspired to speak what I am confident will one day be realized." Dr. Goode pointed out the various tendencies toward the development of a larger scientific and intellectual life in the Federal City. He traced the history of its various institutions of learning, including the Columbian University, the American Academy of Sciences, and the Smithsonian Institution, with which the American Historical Association was allied by Act of Congress approved January 4, 1889.

The next paper was on "The Development of International Law as to Newly Discovered Territory," by Dr. Walter B. Scaife, Reader on Historical Geography in the Johns Hopkins University. His paper opened with a brief sketch of the policy of the Roman See as the arbiter of Europe, from the eleventh to the fifteenth century. Dr. Scaife showed that the bulls of Alexander VI., dividing the non-Christian world between Spain and Portugal, were not manifestations of an unheard of presumption, but were the natural outgrowth of precedent conditions. But this authority was now rejected, and was replaced by the rule of force. Meantime, international law had started on its career to try to persuade men to be governed by reason rather than by force; and ever striving toward the ideal, but keeping the practical in mind, it advanced in the course of two centuries and a half to the formulation of rules of action, high in their aim and still practicable in their application. During this time the practice of nations was undergoing also modifica

tions. Spain, finding the Pope's authority rejected by other powers, set up the right of possession by discovery; but in this England was at least her equal, inasmuch as her representative had seen the mainland of the Western Continent before any Spaniard. England advanced also this theory as long as it answered her purpose, then turned to another, viz., that actual occupation is necessary to effect a complete title. Finally, during the present decade, a union has been made of practice and theory in the formation of the Congo State; and rules have been formulated and adopted by the Great Powers for the future regulation of national action in the matter. The whole subject goes to show the value of forming correct scientific theories as to the affairs of men, even when apparently there is the least hope of their ever being realized; that they do have effect on the practices of mankind, and that a time will come when they will be recognized as the true standard of action.

An important contribution to post bellum historical literature was a paper on "The Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson," by Dr. William A. Dunning, of Columbia University, New York. The points which he considered were three: first, the causes contributing to the impeachment proceedings; second, the issues involved in the impeachment by the House; and third, the issue involved in the trial by the Senate. The causes which seem to have been peculiarly efficient were the personality of Johnson and his theory of reconstruction. There were three different attempts at impeachment in the House. It was the President's removal of Stanton in apparent defiance of the tenure of office act that precipitated the final impeachment. Before the Senate the most important question really answered was, whether the Senate could be viewed as a court proper or not. The radicals said no. The Senate's action, however, favored the contrary opinion. With this divided sentiment, conviction on any of the numerous charges was practically impossible. Article XI., involving the President's resistance to reconstruction, was most likely to prove successful, but failure to obtain a two-thirds vote on this matter was the knell of all impeachment proceedings. Dr. Dunning concluded that the framers of our Constitution built strongly in co-ordinating the various departments of our government. No circumstances more favorable to removing a President from office are likely to arise in the future, and the result of the

Johnson impeachment was a confirmation of the principle asserted by the fathers of the Republic.

The subject of the next paper was "The Trial and Execution of John Brown," by General Marcus J. Wright, of the War Records office, Washington, D. C. The paper was substantially an answer to Dr. H. von Holst's charges that John Brown did not receive a fair trial. General Wright reviewed the whole matter from notes and evidence taken at the time, and clearly established his thesis that every thing was done which the law required. The concluding paper of the morning session was "A Defense of Congressional Government," by Dr. Freeman Snow, of Harvard University. Dr. Snow said that Americans are now engaged in drawing comparisons between the English and the American Constitutions, and, like Mr. Bagehot, they find nearly all the advantages on the side of the English. The multitude, it is said, needs leadership. Hence, if we would save our society from disintegration, we must adopt the English system of responsible leadership. The error of this view, Mr. Snow contended, lies in looking too intently at the mere machinery of government, and not at society as a whole. The effect of obeying leaders is to take away from the masses the habit of thinking for themselves. If our government is at any time less efficient or less orderly, it is the safest in the long run, for it develops the capacity for selfgovernment among the people. Dependence upon leaders, as in the English system, has the opposite effect. Too much is expected of popular government. We should not expect perfection from an imperfect people. If we want more efficient legislation, we must send men to Washington for just that purpose. The present condition of our politics is largely a legacy left us by the slavery struggle and the civil war. It is an abnormal condition of things and will pass away. It is even now on the wane.

The evening session of Monday was at the Columbian University, Judge Chamberlain presiding. The papers were devoted to New England and the West. This feature of grouping contributions by large subjects, such as European History, National History, the North, the West, the South, and Historical Science, was generally recognized as a great improvement in the arrangement of historical material. The first paper of the evening was on "The Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789," by William B. Weeden, of Providence.

New England communities were founded on freehold land tenure; on a meeting, the local and social expression of religious life and family culture; and on a representative, democratic gathering corresponding to the old folk-mote of the Germanic race. Economically New England settlers profited by trade with the Indians through wampum. These beads were both jewelry and currency. As currency they were redeemable in beaver. When immigration was checked in 1640, the colonists built ships and bartered their own products among themselves. Vessels were loaded with fish, and sailed for the West Indies or Europe. Returning they brought iron, cordage, and all the goods needed by the new settlements. In this commerce the Puritans prayed, labored, and traded. Stephen Winthrop wrote to his father, after having sold his wine, "Blessed be God, well sold!" Commerce and the fisheries were nourished by home products. The New England whale fishery began in boats from the shore, and finally extended into every sea. The slave-trade and the making of rum were important factors in the industrial life of the eighteenth century. Even the founder of Faneuil Hall helped forward this form of commercial intercourse. Economic history is the basis of political life. No grand theory of government caused our American colonies to form a republic. The economic resistance of strong citizens to stamp acts and other economic grievances won us our magnificent rights of freedom, as truly as the charters of medieval cities were ob tained by purchase.

Mr. William Henry Smith, president of the Associated Press, New York, then read a valuable paper on "The Correspondence of the Pelham Family, and the Loss of Oswego to the British." Mr. Smith said that the president of the Association one year ago forcibly presented the importance of governmental aid in the collection of historical records, and commended the example of Canada to the attention of our legislators. If that admirable address by Dr. Poole penetrated to the interior of the Capitol, it would seem to be confined to the subterranean vaults, or buried beneath innumerable applications for office. The patriotic work of the Dominion of Canada should claim the attention of our great Republic. Mr. Smith said he was disposed to favor an extension of the Canadian Government over the United States long enough to inspire our legislators with sufficient patriotism to secure the collection and preservation of historical manuscripts relating to America. He then proceeded to illustrate the value of the papers of the Pelham family which