are now accessible, and relate largely to American affairs. The entire collection comprises 522 volumes, 305 of wh.ch contain the official correspondence preserved by Thomas Pelham. It is arranged chronologically, from 1697-1768, and is especially rich in diplomatic papers relating to this country. Mr. Smith's paper will be published in full in the proceedings of the Association, and will doubtless be highly suggestive to students of American history.

The next paper was on "The Early History of the Ballot in Connecticut," by Prof. Simeon E. Baldwin, of the law department of Yale University. The paper was read in an impressive manner and held attention. The professor said that election by ballot first appears in American history as a constitutional provision, in the constitution of Connecticut of 1639. It was coupled with a system of prior official nominations; as regards the "magistrates," or those who came to form the upper house of the legislature. Twenty were annually nominated, of whom twelve only could be elected. The list was arranged by the legislature, on the basis of a previous popular vote, and the present incumbents were always put first, in the order of their official seniority. Only as these died, or refused a renomination, was there practically any chance for the election of any of the last eight. The first name on the official ticket was always voted on first, and so on; no one being allowed to vote for more than twelve. This gave great stability to legislation, and was what kept Connecticut so long subject to a Church establishment. When the power of the Federalists had declined every where else, it was as strong as ever in the upper house. The representatives elected semi-annually shared the feeling of the day; but the councillors, or "assistants," stood for that of ten or twenty years before. From 1783 to 1801, only one was dropped without his consent; and it took a struggle of seventeen years longer to give a majority to the "Tolerationists" and Jeffersonians. Congressmen were elected in a similar manner, and with similar results, down to 1818. The legislature published the nominations (twice as many as there were places to fill), and arranged them so that the first half-those already in officewere almost invariably re-elected. The Colonial charter of 1662 made no mention of the ballot, or of an official ticket, but both had become so firmly imbedded in use, that they were read into it, between the lines, and stood as fundamental institutions of the commonwealth for nearly two hundred years.

At the close of the evening session, Theodore Roosevelt, of the U. S. Civil-Service Commission, gave an ex-tempore address upon "Certain Phases of the Western Movement during the Revolutionary War." He deplored the ignorance of Western history shown by Eastern historians. He likened the ignorance to that of the English regarding American history in general. Those who find American or Western history uninteresting and unpicturesque have only themselves to blame; for the fault lies in the critics, and not in the subject-matter, which is as heroic and inspiring as any great chapter in the history of the world. Mr. Roosevelt said the great West was won in the midst of war and revolution. He gave a graphic picture of the westward movement of the pioneers and the conquest of the Western country from the French and Indians. The motives of the first settlers were adventure, better lands, and the improvement of material conditions in life. Daniel Boone and his followers were joined by various parties of hunters. The region of Kentucky, that old hunting-ground of Northern and Southern Indians, were successfully occupied, but only after Lord Dunmore's war. There was but one route to the West, and that lay through the Cumberland Gap, which the frontiersman had to protect. The conquest of the Illinois country was achieved by the expedition of George Rogers Clark and the Virginians. Few Revolutionary heroes deserve more credit than this bold and aggressive military leader, who conquered the West for the American Republic. Mr. Roosevelt described how government was organized in that Western country upon the basis of English institutions, with which the settlers were familiar. The reproduction of the old English military system and of representation based on military districts, with palisaded villages as the primary seats of self-government, is most curious and instructive. The county-type of organization was naturally copied by settlers who had come from Virginia and the South. The foundation of this great Federal Republic was laid by back woodsmen, who conquered and held the land west of the Alleghanies, and thus prepared the way for the continental dominion of the English race in America. The westward movement of the early pioneers can be best understood in the light of the westward march of immigration in our own time.

A lively discussion followed Mr. Roosevelt's spirited presentation of his subject, and exceptions were taken to his statement that there were no permanent settlements beyond the

Alleghanies until after the Revolution. Dr. Toner, of the Congressional Library, made a plea for the early settlers of the Ohio Valley, and Dr. Stillé, of Philadelphia, and Dr. Poole, of Chicago, entered the lists in behalf of numerous local settlements beyond the mountains. Mr. Roosevelt defended his thesis as a general proposition, and Mr. Edward G. Mason, president of the Chicago Historical Society, sustained him.

Tuesday morning the convention met once more in the National Museum, with a large and enthusiastic audience, to listen to a series of papers upon Southern history. In place of Edward Eggleston's paper on "Bacon's Rebellion," which he was prevented from giving, General Henry B. Carrington, who had just returned from Montana, spoke of "The Concentration of the Flathead Indians upon the Jocko Reservation," as betokening a better future for a tribe which, since the expedition of Lewis and Clark in 1805, has been uniformly friendly with the whites. Chief Carlos and every member of the tribe had consented to the removal. Their lands in the Bitter Root Valley are to be sold for the benefit of the Indians to the highest bidder. General Carrington maintained that the history of this tribe shows that Christianity must precede civilization and is essential to Indian development.

"The Constitutional Aspects of Kentucky's Struggle for Autonomy, 1784-'92," by Ethelbert D. Warfield, president of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, was the next theme of discussion. As early as 1776 Kentucky began to feel the necessity of self-government. In that year George Rogers Clark made the first demand for the separation of that region from Virginia. The mother colony allowed the institution of the county of Kentucky, which concession for the time allayed agitation. It broke out again in 1780, and soon became chronic. From the year 1784 to 1792, when Kentucky was admitted to the Union, no less than ten regular conventions were held and several irregular assemblies besides, in the interest of self-government for Kentucky. The history of the time is one of constant turmoil. Threats of violent separation, both from Virginia and the Union, were frequent; and yet not one action of an unconstitutional character stains the records of these various conventions. The conservative element was largely Scotch-Irish Presbyterian, and it held the balance of power, which was always exerted on the side of law and order. When the Constitution of the United States came before the

Virginia Convention, the district of Kentucky voted, eleven to three, against adoption. And yet when their own convention finally drew up a constitution, it leaned strongly toward the Federal instrument. Kentucky shares with Vermont the honor of first insisting on manhood suffrage. The period known as that of the Separatist Movements is one of singular self-restraint when viewed on the constitutional side.

The next paper was by President Lyon G. Tyler, of Williamsburgh, Va., who presented some historical facts from the records of William and Mary College, the oldest institution of higher education at the South. Mr. Tyler called attention to the fact that this venerable institution had lately been brought to life by an act of the Virginia General Assembly, which appropriates ten thousand a year to the support of the college. He traced the historic influence of the college upon the university idea in Virginia, and dwelt particularly upon the early elective system in vogue at Williamsburgh. He thought that this system was developed by Jefferson at the University of Virginia, and was not an importation from foreign universities. The first law-school in America was established at William and Mary. The professorship of George Wythe was the second law professorship in the English-speaking world. Mr. Tyler also maintained that the college exercised all the powers of a civil-service commission in appointing the county surveyors after examination. He described the early discipline of the college, and illustrated by extracts from the old treasury books the intimate relations between the college and the colony. As early as 1779, William and Mary College was doing its work by an advanced system of lectures on law, medicine, and natural science.

One of the most important papers presented at the convention was on "Materials for the Study of the Government of the Confederate States," by John Osborne Sumner, a graduate of Harvard University. The author said that historical attention had been directed almost exclusively toward the military operations of the Confederacy, but its constitutional and internal history were also of great interest. Much material for a study of the Confederate Government was destroyed during the war, and much that has been preserved is not yet accessible. We have, however, a full series of statutes, about one hundred and fifty executive messages, often accompanied by documents, and various reports of secretaries and bureaus.

There are also in print numerous congressional documents, ordinances, statutes, and governors' messages of the several States, together with the journals of their legislatures and conventions. The journals of the Confederate Congress are said to be still in existence, but their present place of deposit is not known. The Richmond newspapers contained full reports of public proceedings, but much business was transacted in secret, and is little known. The historical material actually existing is widely scattered among the public and private libraries of the country, and there is as yet no systematic bibliography of what has been published. The most important manuscript collection was that purchased by the United States Government and now preserved in the Treasury Department. It com. prises a large portion of the correspondence of the Confederate Government with its agents abroad and at the North. Other Confederate documents are in the custody of the State Depart ment, and there are several small collections in private hands. The publications of the War Records Office include Confederate documents; but the series thus far has been devoted to military history. The newspapers of the South in war time are a mine of history which has been but little exploited. Various magazines were published at the South, and two or three illustrated papers appeared at Richmond during the war, among them a Southern Punch. A noteworthy enterprise of the Confederate Government was the publication in London of The Index, a weekly review established for the cultivation of friendly relations between Europe and the South. Mr. Sumner suggested the organization of inquiry with regard to the existence of materials for Confederate history.

The Hon. William Wirt Henry, of Richmond, said that the library of the Southern Historical Society in his city was the chief Southern repository of collections relating to the civil war and the Confederate States. Dr. J. R. Brackett expressed the hope that Mr. Summer would print, in connection with his paper, a full bibliography of the materials which he had discovered. Prof. William P. Trent, of the University of the South, then read some interesting "Notes on the Outlook for Historical Studies in the Southern States." He called attention to the collection of materials for Southern history now being made in New York City. He sketched the condition of the various State Historical Societies in the South, anl regretted the great lack of public enthusiasm for historical work. He described