Viewing page 53 of 57

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[page from newspaper]]
[[three columns annotated 4 5 and 6]]
January 9, 1890.]  THE INDEPENDENT  (39) 7

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 latter the American Historical Association was allied by Act of Congress approved January 4th, 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, divided the non-Christian world between Spain and Portugal, were not manifestations of an unheard of presumption, but were the natural out-growth 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 govered 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 modifications.  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. Wm. A. Dunning, of Columbia University, New York.  The points which he considered were three:  first, the causes contribution 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 Gen. 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 evidences taken at the time, and clearly established his thesis that everything 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 self-government 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 Wm. B. Weedon, of Providence.  New England communities were found 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 obtained 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 Capital, it would seem to have been 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 are now accessible, and relate largely to American affairs.  The entire collection comprises 522 volumes, 305 of which 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 suggesting 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 everywhere else, it was a strong as ever in the upper house.  The representatives elected semi-annually shared the feeling of the day;  but the councilors, 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 office - were 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 Westward Movement during the Revolutionary War.  He deplored the ignorance of Western history shown by Eastern historians.  He likened this 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 jointed by various parties of hunters.  The region of Kentucky, that old hunting-ground of Northern and Southern Indians, was 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 backwoodsmen, 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. Stille, 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 to the whites.  Chief Carlos and every member of the tribe had consented to the movement.  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, O., 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 Williamsburg, 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 surport 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 Williamsburg.  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 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 is 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 the statutes, about 150 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,