3. Subsidiary and Minor Coins.—All coins of a lower denomination than $1 belong to one or the other of these two classes. There are three subsidiary coins, the fifty cent, the twenty-five cent, and the ten cent pieces. The three cent piece is no longer coined. All other coins are minor coins. The peculiarity of the subsidiary and minor coins is that they are, as compared with the standard coins (gold and silver dollars), of a greater value than the value of the metal they contain. The subsidiary coins are legal-tender to the amount of $10, the minor to the extent of twenty-five cents. By legal-tender is meant that the government has ordered that it must be received in payment of all debts and articles bought. Gold coin and the silver dollars and certificates are legal-tender to any amount.

4. Treasury Notes.—Under this head are included that form of money ordinarily known as "greenbacks," from the color of their backs. They were originally issued during the civil war, and are promissory notes on the part of the government, and as such constitute a portion of the debt of the government. They are paper, which of itself is of no value, and no coin is deposited in the Treasury which they represent, as in the case of the gold and silver certificates. They thus cost the government nothing, and, as they are made legal-tender, and paid out by the government, they were just so much clear gain to it. At first they were not redeemable, i.e., exchangeable for coin at the Treasury, but since 1879 they are, and are therefore just as valuable now as any other form of money, though formerly worth much less than their face value. One hundred million dollars in gold is kept on deposit in the Treasury for their redemption.

5. Notes of National Banks.—This is the one form of money that is not issued directly by the Federal government, but through the agency of what is called our "National Banking System," which may be thus described: A national bank can be organized by any number of men, provided the capital stock of the bank is at least $100,000. One-third of the capital must then be invested in government bonds and deposited in the United States Treasury. The bank may then issue notes to the extent of 90 per cent, of such deposit. Such notes are thus amply secured by the deposits with the government. The government guarantees their payment, and so they circulate as well as the certificates issued directly by the government. Thus a great deal of the paper money in circulation is issued by the national banks, which must, on demand, be redeemed with coin, and, in case of failure of the banks, are paid by the government, which reimburses itself from the deposits. A bank-note differs from a Treasury note in two particulars. The Treasury note or "greenback" is a promise of the government, and is legal-tender in payment of all private debts; the bank-note is the promise of a private company, and is not legal-tender. A bank-note is said to be paid when the bank gives a greenback or coin for it. A greenback is said to be paid or redeemed when the government gives gold for it.

The following figures, taken from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1889, give the amounts of the various sorts of money described in the foregoing, which were then in the Treasury, in the banks, and in the hands of the people:

Gold coin and gold bullion, $680,063,505 Silver coin and silver bullion, 343,947,093 U.S. Treasury notes, 346,681,000 National Bank-notes, 211,378,963 Subsidiary coins, 76,601,836

It will be noticed that gold and silver certificates are not included, for, as explained, they merely represent an equal amount of coin or bullion on deposit.

The total amount of money is thus approximately $1,660,000,000, which, divided by the total population, gives about $27 per capita. It should be borne in mind in connection with these figures that other devices, such as checks, drafts, bills of exchange, and other forms of credit, are used side by side with money in carrying on trade and serving the same purposes.

By the Compromise Silver Bill of July 14, 1890, provision was made for a new kind of paper money. By this act the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion to the amount of 4,500,000 ounces each month, and to issue in payment for such purchases Treasury notes; these notes so issued to be redeemable on demand in coin, and to be a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except where otherwise expressly stipulated.

[Footnote 1: In the preparation of this article, much assistance has been derived from an article by H.C. Adams contributed to the Chautauquan.]



CHAPTER XIX.

Public Lands of the United States.

Prior to 1781 but six of the original thirteen States—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware—had exactly defined boundaries. The others claimed lands of various extents, stretching to the Mississippi River, or even to the Pacific Ocean. The title to all this land was then in the individual States, and the National Government, as such, had no land of its own. This question of the ownership of the western land was one of the subjects of controversy and discontent between the States. It delayed the adoption of the Articles of Confederation for some time. Those States with little or no land regarded with jealousy their more fortunate neighbors, and would not consent to a union until a settlement or understanding was reached.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted only after assurance was made that all the public lands would be ceded to the Federal Government. This was finally done by the States.

The Government formed under the Constitution succeeded to all this land, and in addition, to further cessions made by the States, the last being that of Georgia in 1802. The subsequent additions of territory were made directly to the United States, and not to the States, and all land thus gained was held as public land to be disposed of by Congress.

While the area of the United States is 3,603,884 square miles, the public domain which has been acquired by cession, purchase, or conquest, to be disposed of by the Government as it desires, has amounted to 2,708,388 square miles, or about two-thirds of the total area of the country.

The absolute title to this land, as before stated, became vested in the United States Government. The disposal of these lands has always been under the sole power and control of Congress.

This land was all thinly populated by Indian tribes, who merely hunted over it, leaving unimproved its natural fertility and vast mineral resources. These tribes, being actual occupants, were recognized to have a sort of half interest in the land. This half ownership was always first extinguished by the United States by purchase for small sums, or by the granting of certain privileges, etc., before it was opened up for settlement and occupation by the white man. Land is still held, to a considerable extent, in this way by the Indians. This right of the Indians can be extinguished only by the United States, as they are not allowed to sell or treat at all with individuals or States or foreign nations.

Until 1812 the affairs of the public domain were managed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In that year the office of Commissioner of the General Land Office was created, which remained a bureau under the Treasury Department until 1846. On the creation of the Interior Department in that year, Indian affairs were transferred to it, and have remained under the same management until the present time. This bureau has complete charge of all matters relating to the management and disposal of the public lands, subject to the direction of Congress.

Almost every conceivable method of disposing of this land has been followed. The Government has, however, never assumed the position of landlord and rented the land, except in one case of some mineral land, and this experiment resulted disastrously. Before the land could be disposed of, it was necessary that it should be surveyed by the Government. To do this there was adopted as early as 1776, the so-called rectangular system, which, with slight changes, has been continued until the present time. By this system there are first surveyed a base and a meridian line, crossing each other at right angles, running north and south and east and west. From these fixed lines the land is surveyed and marked off into rectangles of six miles square, each thus containing thirty-six square miles. This is called a township. This is again divided up into sections of one square mile each or 640 acres, and this again into quarter sections of 160 acres each. In some cases these are still further subdivided.

The regulation and disposition of the public lands has been one of the chief duties imposed upon Congress.

The chief methods by which the public lands have been disposed of are as follows:

1. Educational Grants.—Congress from the very first provided liberally for the establishment of common schools through grants of public lands for this purpose. As each township is surveyed one quarter section of 640 acres is set apart for common schools. This has continued from the beginning down to the present time. In addition, large grants have been made specially for the endowment of universities. Within later years land has been given to every State to found State military and agricultural colleges. Up to the year 1888, there had thus been granted for educational purposes 77,448,192 acres.

2. Land Bounties for Military and Naval Service.—There have been granted by different acts bounties of public land, in the nature of pensions, to the soldiers and sailors of the United States Army, on their honorable discharge, for their service to the Government. The amount of land thus granted (1880) has been 61,028,430 acres.

3. To the States for Internal Improvement.—There was granted to the States during the years from 1828 to 1846, for the improvement of rivers, building of canals, wagon roads, railroads, etc., 162,230,099 acres.

4. Sale of Public Land.—Under this head there are two classes of public land—first, that which may be bought for the minimum rate of $1.25; and, secondly, the alternate sections along the railroads (the other alternate sections being granted to the railroads), the minimum price of which is $2.50. There have been sold in all 192,584,116 acres, realizing $233,000,000.

5. Under the Pre-emption Acts.—These acts, passed at various times, provide that where a man, a citizen of the United States, settles upon and cultivates for a certain length of time, a tract of land not greater than 160 acres, the United States will give him such tract.

6. Under the Homestead Acts.—The homestead laws have created a better and more certain manner for settlers to acquire land than under the pre-emption acts. By these acts it is provided that any citizen who will select either 160 acres of the $1.25 land, or 80 of the $2.50 land, can then get a permit from the land office, settle on his land, and acquire a title to it.

7. Under the Timber Culture Act.—This act gives to any one the right to 160 acres of the $1.25 land if he will plant 10 acres in timber, or 80 acres of the $2.50 land if he will plant 5 acres in timber.

8. Certain Lands to States.—Quite a large quantity of the public land has been given to the States on account of its quality, as swamp or overflowed land, and for various reasons, to the extent of 158,417,514 acres.

9. Grants to Pacific and other Railroad Companies.—The nature of these grants have already been spoken of in another chapter. From 1850 to 1872 a total of 150,504,994 acres was given for railroad construction.



XX.

Reconstruction.

The conclusion of the civil war in 1865 did not relieve the United States Government of its extraordinary difficulties. There was the whole South, a conquered territory, occupying the anomalous position of a district, still within the Union, yet possessing no legal state governments. The Confederate government had now been destroyed by the North, and the South was thus without a government. Four million slaves had been liberated, who were uneducated, without money, and living among people hostile to them. Congress had to provide for and protect these freedmen in their rights. The work to be done by Congress, was then:—1. To decide upon what terms and upon what conditions the seceded States should be re-admitted into the Union, and to provide for them a government until such re-admission. 2. To protect the negro.

The South, though in the Union, had at this time, of course, no representation in Congress, and consequently, the Republicans were in great majority. Unfortunately, Johnson, who succeeded to the Presidency at the death of Lincoln, though a Republican, disagreed with his party, and legislation upon this subject was only secured by passing all acts over his veto by a two-thirds vote.

After much discussion, the first Reconstruction Bill, "to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," was passed in 1867, vetoed by the President, and passed over his veto. Its principal provisions were—1. The insurrectionary States were to be put under United States control, and for this purpose divided into five military districts, over each of which the President was to appoint a commanding officer. 2. The people of the various States might hold a delegate convention, elected by the citizens who had not been deprived of the right to vote for participation in the rebellion. The convention was to prepare a new constitution, which constitution was to be then submitted to the vote of the people, and when ratified by them and approved by Congress, should go into force, and the State be entitled to representation in Congress. Before approval by Congress the constitutions adopted by the rebel States had to agree in all the following particulars: (1) abolishing slavery; (2) declaring null and void all debts created by States in aid of the rebellion; (3) renouncing all right of secession; (4) declaring the ordinance of secession which they had passed null and void; (5) giving the right to vote to all male citizens, without regard to color; (6) prohibiting the passing of any law to limit or abridge the rights of any class of citizens.

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by a sufficient number of States, and was declared a part of the Constitution.

In 1871 all the States were, for the first time since 1861, represented in both houses of Congress. Reconstruction by Congress was then completed.



CHAPTER XXI.

Party Machinery.

In all the States, counties, cities, and even in the smaller subdivisions of wards, political parties are thoroughly organized, with acknowledged leaders, and under systems of rules or party government. This party government, or "machine," as it is called, has been created by no law or constitution, but is one which has been gradually formed by the voters themselves, and under which they have voluntarily placed themselves, in order better to succeed in their elections, well realizing that the best chance of success is by having all the voters of their party united on certain principles embodied in a party platform, and having candidates so nominated that the whole party will recognize them as their choice.

The aims of party organization are: First, union, that is, having all voters united as to candidates and platform; and second, recruiting or the gaining of new adherents.

There are at present two opposing political parties, both striving for the control of the Government. Both have very nearly the same system of party government, but their organizations are totally distinct and separate one from the other.

There are two distinct parts of party government. They are; first, sets of committees, whose business it is to do all the work of managing elections, such as raising and applying funds for election purposes, organizing meetings, providing speakers, publishing and distributing political tracts and other information, and stirring up enthusiasm by parades and fireworks, etc. They have also the important duty of calling together nominating conventions.

The second part of the "machine" embraces the nominating conventions, which propose the names of the candidates whom their party are to support for election. These assemblies are called together by the committees periodically, for the purpose of specific nominations, and cease to exist as soon as their work is done. Besides nominating candidates, the conventions draw up the platform, which is a statement of party principles, beliefs, and pledges. To provide for their reassembling next time, they also elect a new committee, for the next term; and also send delegates to the next higher convention. Thus are found committees and a nominating convention, managing not only national and state elections, but even arranging and managing elections in the smaller electoral subdivisions.

There is a committee and a nominating convention for every city, for every county, for every district, and for every State. There are, then, throughout the whole United States, such committees, each controlling its own local affairs, but yet all related to each other, thus forming one vast organized system.

Beginning with the smallest and lowest, let us show their mutual connections and workings. Starting, then, with the township convention, or convention of a city ward, we find that all the voters of the party are called together on a certain day by a committee (which was chosen at the preceding meeting) for the purpose of nominating candidates for local affairs, and naming delegates to represent them at the city or county convention. The city or county convention, composed of these men, is called together by the city or county committee. It first nominates candidates for the city or county offices, and selects delegates to the state convention, and also provides for the next meeting by the election of a new committee for the ensuing year. In similar manner, just before every state election, the state convention, composed of city and county delegates, is called together by the state central committee. Here are nominated men for state officers; a new committee is appointed to manage state elections; and also, once every four years, the important duty of selecting Presidential electors is performed. The Democrats also select, in this state convention, their delegates to the National Presidential Nominating Convention. The Republicans select but four delegates from each State in state conventions, the remainder being appointed in district conventions. Following the same method the National Central Committee calls together a National Convention of all the delegates which have been appointed by the State, for the purpose of (1) nominating candidates for their party for President and Vice President; (2) drawing up and accepting a party platform; (3) selecting a new National Central Committee for the next four years, which committee is to manage the election campaign and call the next National Convention.



CHAPTER XXII.

National Conventions and Presidential Campaigns.

History and Development of the National Convention.—In the Presidential elections of 1789 and 1792 there was no necessity for regular party nominations, as the whole people were practically unanimous in favor of Washington. Likewise in 1796 it was so well understood that Adams was the man desired by the Federalists, and Jefferson by the Democrats, that formal nominations were not required. But, commencing with 1800, political parties were more divided in their choice, and some method was demanded by which it might be decided on whom the party should unite. From 1800 to 1820 this demand was met by nominations made by Congressmen, in caucuses, or private meetings, of the members of each party. This method finally proved unsatisfactory to the country, but from 1824-1835 no new and better method was invented, and nominations were made rather irregularly, each State legislature proposing the name of its favorite. This method of nomination naturally failed to unite the voters of the party, in all the different States, on one man, and had to be abandoned. After a failure to revive nomination for President by Congressional caucuses, a new method was developed and adopted, which was by National Nominating Conventions, such as we have to-day. The introduction of this last plan may fairly be dated at 1840. National Conventions were first held at Eastern cities, but are now held further West, to accommodate the shifting center of population, Chicago being the favorite city. The National Convention is composed of delegates from all the States. Each State sends twice as many delegates as it has representatives in the National Senate and House of Representatives, thus making a total now of 802. In addition to these, the Republicans allow two delegates from each of the Territories.

Method of Procedure.—As soon as the State and Territorial delegations arrive in the city they each elect a member for the new National Central Committee for the next term. Inside of this committee is chosen an executive committee, which, in reality, does all the work of conducting the campaign. The members of this committee are almost always men of wealth, and are expected to contribute liberally to the campaign fund.

The business of the National Convention is commenced by the chairman of the National Central Committee calling the convention to order. A temporary chairman is then chosen, who appoints a "committee on credentials," whose duty it is to decide which delegation shall be admitted in case two delegations are sent from the same State, both claiming admittance as representing the party in that State. A "committee on resolutions" is also appointed to prepare the party platform. The next day the permanent chairman is appointed. The platform is then read and adopted, or amended and adopted. There is next an alphabetical roll-call of the States, when names are proposed and seconded for nomination as candidates for President. The average number of names proposed is seven or eight, though sometimes as many as twelve are offered. As each man is proposed the delegate presenting his name extols him in a laudatory speech, and gives reasons why his man will make a strong candidate and an able President. Voting then commences. Each delegate has one vote. In the Republican convention a majority of the whole number of the delegates voting for one man is required before a nomination is reached, while the Democrats require a two-thirds vote. Sometimes a nomination is made on the first ballot, while at other times the convention has been so divided that as many as 53 ballots have been required, as was the case when the Whigs nominated Scott. Forty-nine ballots were needed when Pierce was nominated by the Democrats. In 1888 Cleveland was nominated by the Democrats by acclamation, no vote being necessary to show the wishes of the delegates. Harrison was nominated by the Republicans on the eighth ballot.

A candidate for President having been selected, a Vice President is nominated in a similar manner, though generally with much less trouble, and the work of the convention is ended.

The candidates are now put before the people by their respective parties. The people, of course, do not vote directly for them, but what amounts to the same thing, vote for electors, who are pledged to vote for them. A vigorous campaign of four months then follows, until election day, in the first week in November.

Each candidate, a short time after his nomination, is expected to publish a letter of acceptance, in which he expresses his full confidence and belief in the platform which his party has adopted, discloses his views, and outlines what his future policy will be if he is elected.

To recapitulate, then, in a few words, let us see how a President is nominated and elected.

In nominating the President each voter in caucus or primary meeting shares in choosing delegates to the ward convention, which chooses delegates to the city or county convention, which in turn sends delegates to the district conventions. In these, delegates are chosen for the State conventions, where Presidential electors are appointed, and also the delegates sent to the National Convention.

In the National Convention, composed of delegates sent from the State conventions and Territories, the Presidential candidate is nominated. The electors are elected by the people, who in turn elect the nominees of their National Convention. If State officers, as Governor, Attorney-General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, etc., are to be elected, they are nominated in the State conventions and elected by the people.

Besides counties, townships, and cities, States have other subdivisions for political purposes. Thus the whole State is divided into senatorial districts, each one of which sends one Senator to the State legislature, and also into smaller districts, each one of which sends one member to the lower house of the State legislature. Usually a senatorial district is one or more counties, except in the case of large cities, which may in itself contain two or more senatorial districts.



CHAPTER XXIII.

Introduction to the Study of the History of Political Parties in the United States.

A knowledge of the nature of our federal government, and its relations to the State Governments, of which it is composed, is a prerequisite to an understanding of the history of our political parties.

The government of the United States is a federal republic, first formed by the voluntary union of thirteen commonwealths. At present it is composed of forty-four united States. It is a government of enumerated powers, and in this respect differs radically from the governments of the individual States. As all agree, the Federal Government possesses only those powers specifically granted to it by the constitution. The States possess all powers except those granted to the National Government, and those not prohibited to them by the terms of the constitution. When the government of the United States desires to exercise a power, it must be proven that it was the intention of the framers of the constitution, and so expressed in that instrument, that it should possess such a power. The States in the exercise of their powers need only show that they have not resigned that power. If there be any dispute as to the constitutionality of an act of either Congress or a State legislature, the point is decided in the final instance by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the political history of our country since the adoption of the constitution, there have been ever present two great constitutional questions, in the conflicting answers to which we must seek the origin and creeds of our great political parties. If we can gain a proper conception of the character of these two questions, we shall have taken a long step towards the understanding of the reasons for the conduct of the various opposing parties, and the basis of the disputes arising between them. These have been the two questions. First, What is the extent of the powers granted by the constitution to the National Government? Second, What is the real nature of our Union; and, arising under this problem, What is the extent to which the States are justified in opposing what they believe to be unconstitutional acts on the part of the National Government; and, Can a State or States, as a last resort, withdraw from the Union? The remainder of this chapter will be mainly devoted to a more particular examination of these questions.

What are the legitimate powers of the United States Government?

The United States government was the result of the union of thirteen independent colonies—a union voluntary on the part of the colonies, yet forced upon them by the evident need of some central power strong enough to enforce obedience at home and demand respect abroad. The determination of what and how many the national powers should be, was the work of the Constitutional Convention. Of the difficulties of this task we have already spoken.

In forming a scheme for a central government, there was the double necessity of creating a government strong enough to perform the duties for which it was established, and yet not so strong as to endanger the free self-government of the States. The delicate point to be adjusted was to give to the Federal Government only such powers as were necessary for the establishment of an effective National Government, and, as far as possible, to retain in the States their full governmental powers; in other words, to harmonize federal strength with State sovereignty.

The fear exhibited by the States in the debates preceding the adoption and ratification of the constitution of 1787, that the National Government might become too strong at the expense of their own powers of government, was not set at rest by the compromises obtained in the convention, nor by the eleven amendments adopted soon after the inauguration of the new government. The reason for the continuance of this fear is that the constitution is so worded that the powers of the general government are not precisely fixed.

The statement sometimes loosely made that a description of our government is contained in the constitution, is apt to be misleading. The constitution has served rather as a foundation upon which to build the government, than as an entire framework. As a distinguished writer has termed it, "The constitution was meant only as a scheme in outline, to be filled up afterwards, and from time to time, by legislation."

A description of our present form of government is far from being contained in the instrument adopted in 1788. For example, the constitution makes no mention of how business shall be transacted by the legislature. Committee Government in Congress owes its existence to no provision of the constitution. The only mention made in the constitution of the Speaker of the House, to-day the most powerful officer in the legislature, is where it is provided that "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers." All executive departments—the State, War, Navy, Treasury, Post Office, Interior, Justice, Agriculture, and Labor—have been created from time to time by act of Congress. Regarding the structure and number of federal courts, the constitution merely provides that "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Our elaborate system of district, circuit, and territorial courts, rests solely upon congressional enactments. So, too, the constitution gives to Congress the control of territories, but does not provide how that control shall be exercised.

The framers of our constitution were wise in not attempting to specify more particularly than they did, the manner in which the several powers granted to the Federal Government should be exercised. They realized that they were forming a scheme that was to endure for many years, and that if it was to be capable of meeting the needs of a changing and rapidly growing country, it would have to be elastic, and contain within itself the power of adapting itself to new needs and conditions. To secure the beneficial execution of the powers granted, Congress was given the power of selecting appropriate means. To have refused the grant of this power, would have been to attempt to provide by unchangeable rule for emergencies that could by no possibilities be foreseen. Or, as Chief Justice Marshall has put it, "It would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances."

After enumerating the various particular powers given to the Federal Legislature, the constitution further says (Art. I, Sec. 8) "and [shall have power] to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This is the clause under whose authorization all those powers have been assumed, and functions exercised, that have made the United States government of to-day so different from that of 1789.

The general rule is, as has been said, that the United States government possesses only those powers granted to it by the constitution. But here, in this clause just quoted, is a general grant of all powers necessary or proper for carrying into effect any of the powers particularly granted. Who or what is to decide just what powers are necessary and proper for the accomplishment of this object? Naturally people have not been able to agree upon the question of just what powers are constitutional or expedient as "implied" under this title of "necessary and proper" and this question has been largely instrumental in dividing the people in opposing political parties. There has always been a party, the members of which, favoring great powers for the States rather than for the Federal Government, have been "strict constructionists," and have advocated a close and narrow interpretation of this clause of "implied powers." From their desire to retain in the State governments as many powers as possible, they have been known as the "States' Rights Party." Opposing them has been the party of "loose constructionists," the members of which have held to a free, liberal interpretation of the constitution, and have endeavored to increase the power of the Federal Government. There have never been political parties styling themselves "Strict Constructionists" and "Loose Constructionists," for these are terms that have been used not as titles, but as definitions of different principles of constitutional interpretation. But by whatever name they may have been known, there have been, during the greater part of our history, these two political parties, the one holding to the principle of strict construction and States' Rights, and the other to that of loose construction and federal power.

The second fundamental question spoken of in the beginning of this chapter as underlying national politics, is concerning the nature of our union and the rights of state nullification and secession.

A final answer to these questions cannot of course be here attempted, but that which can be done, is to state in a few words just what their meaning is, and the points upon which they have turned. When we come to the consideration of the course of politics in the United States we shall see the answers that history has given to them.

The government of the United States is the judge of its own powers, for it is in its own supreme judicial tribunal that the constitutionality of both State and Federal laws is finally determined. More than once has a practical answer been demanded to the question What is to be done by a State or States when, in their estimation, the National Government has transcended its powers and legislated in an unconstitutional manner? Obedience, nullification, or, in the last resort, secession from the Union, have been the various alternatives that have offered themselves to the States. Different views of the nature of our Union have sustained the propriety of the selection of different ones of these alternatives.

According to the nullification theory, the constitution is held to be of the nature of a compact between the States as one party and the Federal Government as the other; and that, as in all contracts, if the agreements contained therein are broken by the one party, the other party has the right to refuse its assent thereto. Therefore, if the United States government attempts the exercise of powers not granted in the compact, the States have the right to interpose the "rightful remedy" of "nullification." That is to say, that each State has the right to determine for itself when an unwarranted power has been assumed by the general government, and in such a case to declare the obnoxious law null and of no force within her own boundaries.

In considering the question of nullification, it is necessary to distinguish between the theory or rather method of nullification propounded by Madison and Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, from that of Calhoun brought forward at the time of South Carolina's resistance to, and attempted nullification of, the Tariff laws of 1828, and 1832. In the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions the Alien and Sedition Acts were solemnly declared to be unconstitutional, that the Union was a compact, and the States had the right to interpose the remedy of nullification; but open resistance was not proposed. By the Jeffersonian theory, it was proposed to obtain the opinion of three-fourths of the States that the acts were unconstitutional, and thus to "nullify" them after the manner of a constitutional amendment. Until such nullification, the laws were to be obeyed.

The Calhoun doctrine was something entirely different from this. According to his doctrine, any single State might order at once a suspension of the law within her borders, and not until three-fourths of the States in national convention had overruled the nullification could the State be forced to obey the obnoxious law. To use Calhoun's own words, his theory was, that "it belongs to the State, as a member of the Union, in her sovereign capacity in convention, to determine definitely, as far as her citizens are concerned, the extent of the obligation which she has contracted; and if, in her opinion, the act exercising the power in dispute be unconstitutional, to declare it null and void, which declaration would be obligatory on her citizens." The sum and substance of this was, as Von Holst has pointed out,[1] to give to one-fourth of the States the power if they saw fit to deprive the Federal Government of every power entrusted to it, that is, to alter the constitution at will.

[Footnote 1: Constitutional History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 474, note.]

The right of secession follows as a logical outcome of the theory of nullification rigidly carried out. Federal laws are general in their nature, and if binding anywhere, must be binding everywhere. If then, a minority of States insist on their right of nullification, the federal government will be obliged either to admit that every act of Congress is without any force in a State until it has obtained the tacit approval of the people of that State, or else it will be driven to the necessity of obtaining the enforcement of the law by arms. Such employment of force would of course be but the prelude to secession. Indeed, South Carolina, in her Ordinance of Nullification, declared that she would secede, if the United States did not repeal the obnoxious laws, or if she should attempt to enforce the collections of the tariff duties provided for by the acts in dispute. According to the Unionist view, it is held that in no case has the individual State the right to resist the operation of a federal law, much less does it possess the actual power to pass a law affecting its relation to, or continuance in, the Union. This view is supported by an interpretation of the constitution that denies to that instrument the character of a compact between the States and the National Government. The constitutional theory of this school is that the National Government was formed by the people as a whole, and not by the States. That the States accepted this government, but were in no sense parties to an agreement between them and the Nation. According to this view, the Union began with the first acts of resistance taken in common by the colonies, and is thus, in a sense, older than the state governments, which were not formed until after the Declaration of Independence. Also, that when the States gave in 1788 their consent to the constitution, their consent was irrevocable. Two quotations from decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States will make clear the arguments and theory of the Unionists.

Said Chief Justice Marshall:[1] "The convention which promulgated the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures, but the instrument when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligations or pretentious to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof, under recommendation of its legislature for their assent and ratification.' This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the conventions, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only way in which they can act safely, effectually, and wisely on such a subject, by assenting in convention. It is true they assembled in their several States, an where could they have assembled? From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling the convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their decision was final. It required not the affirmance of, and could not be negatived by, the state governments. The constitution when adopted was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties. The government of the Union then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit."

[Footnote 1: McCulloch v. Md., 4 Dall., 316.]

Said Chief Justice Chase:[1] "The union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the articles of Confederation. By these the union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when the articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be more indissoluble if a perpetual union made more perfect, is not? But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States.... Without the States in Union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the constitution, as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government. The constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

[Footnote 1: Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 750.]

A civil war of four years' duration has decided the Unionist theory of our government to be the one under which the Nation is to be governed. Whether or not, in point of fact, the Nation was older than the States, and the constitution not a compact, but an indissoluble Union, will always remain a question to be discussed. The dispute turns upon a point that does not admit of final determination. We can only theorize. To maintain the view that the Union is older than the States it is necessary to show that the Continental Congress was of such a character, and its powers of such a nature, that a true national government may be said to have existed before July 4, 1776, and therefore, that the Declaration of Independence and the consequent transformation of the colonies into States were not the result of the individual action of separate colonies, but of the whole people united in a nation. And, following from this, that the States were never out of the union, but that the individual colonies became States, only as belonging to the United States. Consequently that the theory of a 'compact' between the States and the United States is untenable, for at the time the United States was born, the States did not exist.[1]

[Footnote 1: As Lincoln expressed it in his message of July 4, 1861: "The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status.... The Union is older than any of the States, and in fact, it created them as States."]

To maintain the "Compact Theory" it is necessary to show that the "Continental Congress" had no properly delegated national powers, and to it the character of a national government could not fitly be applied, and that the colonies when they separated from England remained independent of each other, because as colonies they had been independent. Therefore, that the initial clause of the Preamble to the Constitution "We the people of the United States" referred not to all the people of the United States in their collective capacity, but to the people of the several States.

In fine, admitting, as all do, the Continental Congress to have been a revolutionary body, exercising undelegated powers, the question is, Was it, or was it not, a de jure, as well as de facto national government, and this is a question that cannot be answered absolutely.

These opposing views of the character of our constitution have been stated not with the idea of proving either of them to be the correct one, but solely to indicate the lines along which political parties have fought their battles. Thus, it is hoped, the student will be prepared for an intelligent consideration of the various political parties that have existed in the course of his country's history.

To complete the statement of the underlying causes and fundamental principles that have directed the course of our national politics, it is necessary to give at least some short account of the natural causes that have operated irresistibly to divide the North and the South in their political thoughts and actions.

Why is it that slavery flourished in the South, but languished and was gradually abolished in the North? Why is it that the stronghold of the States' Rights doctrine of nullification and of secession was in the South, and the citadel of the Unionists in the North? Why is it that to-day the debate between high and low customs duties, is, to a very considerable extent, a discussion between the New England and Middle States and the Southern States?

To all these questions a very satisfactory answer can be found in the different physical characteristics of the North and South. The nature of the soil and climate, as well as the character of the settlers, predetermined for the Southern colonies an agricultural character, and for the colonies of the North a commercial and industrial character; and, already by the end of the eighteenth century we find in them a marked difference of political and social life.

From the very start, the South, favored by a mild climate, rich soil, and broad, low-lying valleys, developed an agricultural life. Slavery was introduced at an early date, and flourished, the warm climate being congenial to the negro, and the rude manual labor of the field suited to his meagre capabilities. The result of these influences was to develop in the South a system of large ill-worked manors or estates. The predominance of slave labor, discouraged the immigration of free labor, and the South remained comparatively thinly settled. The moral effect of slavery upon the white population was bad. Habits of thriftlessness and laziness were engendered among the free population, and their social relations corrupted.

In the North, an indented coast with many good harbors, a rugged soil, and a wintry climate, encouraged the development of a commercial and manufacturing life. Slave labor here proved itself scarcely profitable, neither the climate nor the nature of the work required, being suited to the frames and abilities of the African. As compared with the South, the North soon became thickly settled, and largely as a result of this, adopted the small area of the town or township as its most important unit of local government, instead of the larger area, the county, used in the South. This essential difference in the system of local government in the North, from that of the South, has remained unchanged to this day, and has exercised great influence upon the political habits of the peoples of these two sections.

At the time of the adoption of the constitution, these differences between the northern and southern colonies were not so great as they were soon to become. As contrasted with the North, the agricultural character of the South was already marked, but the designation of these two sections as "free" and "slave" states had not yet come into use. It was the remarkable development of the cultivation of cotton consequent upon the invention of Whitney's cotton gin in 1793, that gave the tremendous impetus to the increase of slavery in the South. While prior to the introduction of this machine, scarcely a single pound of cotton could be separated from the seed by a man in a day, Whitney's gin made it possible to prepare for market three hundred and fifty pounds per day. The nature of the cotton plant rendered it peculiarly fitted to the climate and soil of the South, and the ease with which it could be cultivated and prepared for market, made the application of slave labor extremely profitable. In 1789 many of the southern states exhibited evidences of a desire and intention to ultimately abolish slavery, but from this time we hear nothing more of this. After 1800 the number of slaves increased rapidly. The census of 1790 showed in the southern colonies 650,000, while that of 1820 showed the number to be over 1,580,000. From 1800 to 1865 the political life of the South is largely explainable by the interest of its people in, and devotion to, the institution of slavery.

The promptness with which, irrespective of party affiliations, the people of the North assumed the anti-slavery attitude and those of the South placed themselves under the pro-slavery banner, at the time of the Missouri contest in 1820, shows the extent to which these two sections of the United States were already divided upon this great question. The South, retarded in its growth by the employment of slave labor, as compared with the North already exhibited an example of arrested development, and her politicians saw that if the balance of power between the slave-holding and the non-slave-holding States was to be maintained, a wider field for the extension of their favorite institution would have to be provided. It is in the light of this motive that the desire of the South for the annexation of Cuba and of Texas, even at the expense of a war with Mexico, is to be interpreted. The compromise of 1820 satisfied the demands of the slavocracy for a time, but only for a time. In 1850 the South again demanded, and obtained concessions. It required a civil war to demonstrate to us the futility of endeavoring to avert by compromise the conflict that was irrepressible between the North and South so long as slavery existed in the one, and was reprobated in the other.

The different attitudes assumed at the present day by the North and South in regard to the Tariff question, is explainable by the difference in the industrial life of these two sections. The North is essentially a manufacturing centre, and, as such, demands high import duties as a protection to her manufacturers and merchants. The South is, as a whole, agricultural, and favors low duties with the idea of thus extending foreign trade, and affording a larger market for the sale of her raw products. A striking proof of the influence of the industrial life of a section in determining its attitude towards the tariff, is seen in the change of front of Massachusetts after 1824 from free-trade to protection, this change being wholly due to the predominating influence acquired by her manufactures over her commerce and agriculture.

FINIS.



NOTES.

For the assistance of those who may desire a fuller acquaintance with the administrative methods of our Federal and State Governments than is to be obtained from this book, these bibliographical notes are appended. Not only the authorities actually consulted in the preparation of this monograph are given, but mention is also made of the most reliable and accessible sources of information upon the more important topics germane to the study of Government and Administration. In arrangement, the notes follow the order of topics used in the text.

General Works upon United States Government.

Worthy of first mention is the admirable work of James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, 2 vols., 1888. To the student of American institutions and administration these two volumes are indispensable. In them is contained the best and latest scientific exposition of our political institutions as they exist to-day. The only criticism that can be made regarding the work is that the executive departments have not received sufficient attention as regards the details of their administration, nor the practical and scientific value of the work performed by their numerous bureaus. Interesting from an historical point of view is De Tocqueville's Democracy in America, now fifty years old. Lalor's Encyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy and American History is by far the best work for reference. The principal articles in the field of political science are contributed by Dr. J.C. Bluntschli, those upon United States History by the late Prof. Alexander Johnston, and those upon Federal Administration by A.R. Spofford, Librarian of Congress.

Bannatyne's Hand-book of Republican Institutions in the United States is an authoritative work based upon federal and state laws, and other authoritative sources of information. It is entirely descriptive and very complete. Other general works are Mulford's The Nation: the Foundation of Civil Order and Political Life in the United States; Laboulaye's Histoire Politique des Etats-Unis, 3 vols.; and Lamphere's The United States Government: Its Organization and Practical Workings, this last being chiefly valuable for its statistical and tabulated information.

Among foreign works that consider the theory and practice of the United States Government, are Bagehot's English Constitution; Sir Henry Maine's chapter on the Constitution of the United States in his Popular Government; E.A. Freeman's article Presidential Government contained in his Historical Essays (1871); Lord Brougham's chapter on the Government of the United States in his Political Philosophy, Vol. 3; and E. Boutmy's Etudes de droit Constitutionel. For current political information McPherson's Hand-book of Politics, issued every two years since 1870, is valuable. Besides statistical information regarding government revenues and expenditures, public debts, votes, population, names of congressmen, &c.; these hand-books contain Presidential and Gubernatorial messages, transcripts from the Congressional Record relating to leading matters discussed in Congress; and decisions of the Supreme Court that are of general importance. The Statesman's Year-Book, published annually by Macmillan & Co., is valuable for reference in matters concerning both foreign and American governments. Bibliographical references are also given to each existing government.

John Fiske's recent volume on Civil Government in the United States, stands in merit far above other manuals bearing this name, most of which are simply running commentaries on the constitution. An excellent feature of Mr. Fiske's book is the addition of bibliographical notes at the ends of the chapters.

The following are manuals that may be recommended as of comparative merit: Macy, Our Government: How it Grew, What it Does, and How it Does it; Cocker's Civil Government; Thorpe's Government of the People of the United States; Martin's Civil Government, and Ford's American Citizens' Manual.

The most complete collection of bibliographical references to the Constitution of the United States is that prepared by W.E. Foster, and published as Economic Tract No. xxix, by the "Society for Political Education," New York.

Government.

Dr. J.C. Bluntschli's Lehre vom Modernen Stat, in three volumes, gives the finest treatment of the various forms and general principles of governments. A portion of Dr. Bluntschli's work has been translated into English and published under the title The Theory of the State. There is also a French translation of this work. Other authorities under this head are: Bluntschli's Staatswoerterbuch; Woolsey's Political Science, or the State Theoretically and Practically Considered; and Montesquieu's De l'Esprit des Lois. Interesting from an historical point of view, are the theories contained in the works of political philosophers in the past. See Plato's Republic; Aristotle's Politics, Cicero's De Republica; Thomas Aquinas' Of the Government of Principles; Dante's De Monarchia; Machiavelli's Prince; Jean Bodin's Of the Commonwealth; Hobbes' Leviathan; Filmer's Patriarcha; Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity; Locke's Civil Government; J.J. Rousseau's Social Contract; Bentham's Fragment on Government; J.S. Mills' Representative Government.

Pollock's History of the Science of Politics, published in the "Humboldt Library," contains an admirable summary of the views of these political philosophers.

The works of several of these authors (Hobbes, Hooker, Locke, Filmer, Machiavelli) are contained in "Morley's Universal Library," published by Routledge at one shilling per volume.

For theories regarding the origin and development of government, see Maine's Ancient Law, Early History of Institutions, and Early Law and Custom; Spencer's Principles of Sociology, Vol. I; Morgan's Ancient Society; McLennan's Studies in Ancient History, and The Patriarchal Theory; and Bagehot's Physics and Politics, published in the Humbolt Library. The contract theory of government is presented in various forms in the works of Hobbes, Hooker, Locke and Rousseau.

Functions of Government.

The proper limits of state action are discussed in Mill's Essay on Liberty; Huxley's Administrative Nihilism (Humboldt Lib.); Spencer's Social Statics, Man versus the State, The Coming Slavery, and The Sins of Legislators (Humboldt Lib.); Stephen's Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; Humboldt's Sphere and Duties of Government; and H.C. Adams' State in Relation to Industrial Action, published by the American Economic Association. Wilson's The State contains a valuable chapter upon the functions of government. For a description of existing forms of government, Prof. Woodrow Wilson's The State is very valuable. See also Statesmen's Year Books.

Colonial Governments.

Volumes III, IV, and V of Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols., contain excellent monographs upon the founding, history and nature of government of the various colonies. Doyle's two volumes, entitled The English Colonies in America, present an exhaustive study of the American colonies from an European point of view. A handy digest of this work is contained in his small History of the United States, published as one of the volumes in "Freeman's Historical Course for Schools." Lodge's Short History of the English Colonies in America is chiefly devoted to colonial social life. In the preparation of the chapter upon Colonial Governments, we have obtained the most assistance from the first volume of Story's Commentaries upon the Constitution. Pages 15 to 50 of Hannis Taylor's Origin and Growth of the English Constitution are important. Fiske's Beginnings of New England is an extremely interesting description of the early history of a single section. Steps Toward Union and Independence.

See especially Story's Commentaries; Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States; Scott's Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies in America; Fiske's Critical Period of American History; and A.B. Hart's Formation of the Union, 1763-1829, to appear in the series, "Epochs of American History." For the Albany plan of union see Franklin's Life and Letters, Vol. 4. For an account of the causes leading to revolution written from an essentially English standpoint, see Lecky's History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. IV.

Articles of Confederation.

Best upon this subject are: Curtis' History of the Constitution; Marshall's Life of Washington; Bancroft's History of the United States; and Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VII, article The Confederation by the Editor. See also Secret Journals of Congress, and authorities cited above.

Constitutional Convention and the Adoption of the Constitution.

See authorities cited above, and J.A. Jameson's Treatise on Constitutional Conventions. The official sources of information are: the meagre Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of the Convention; and Elliot's Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, * * * * together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, the last volume of which contains Madison's notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, frequently called The Madison Papers.

The Constitution.

The number of valuable works concerned more or less directly with a study of the Constitution is very great. Only a very few can be mentioned. A very complete list of references to the Constitution, is that by W.E. Foster, already referred to. The leading works upon Constitutional Law are Cooley's General Principles of Constitutional Law, and Constitutional Limitations; Von Holst's, Hare's and Pomeroy's treatises on Constitutional Law. Story's Commentaries on the Constitution are invaluable. The character and value of The Federalist have been noticed in the text (p. 25). On Constitutional Amendments, see Johnston's article on Amendments in Lalor's Encyclopaedia. Concerning Constitutional developments, due to judicial construction, see Willoughby's Supreme Court of the United States: its History and Influence in our Constitutional System, published in the Johns Hopkins Studies, Extra Vol. VII; and The Constitutional History of the United States as Seen in the Development of American Law, by Judge Cooley and others, edited by H.W. Rogers. The Unwritten Constitution of the United States, is the title of a very recent book by C.G. Tiedeman.

For constitutional development due to war experiences, see Dunning's United States in Civil War and in Reconstruction. W.E. Foster has in press a pamphlet of references on The United States Constitution in Civil War.

On Federal Government, see Jellinek's Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen; and Hart's Introduction to the Study of Federal Government, Harvard Historical Monographs, No. 2. Besides giving an outline of the political history of the successive federations in the world's history, with an account of the literature upon each, Mr. Hart's monograph contains a very excellent bibliographical note on Federal Government in general, and the United States Constitution in particular.

The laws of the United States are known as United States Statutes at Large. In 1878 was published a large volume containing all Federal laws in force in 1874. In 1881 was published a Supplement (known as Richardson's Supplement) containing congressional legislation during the years 1874—1881.

Congressional Government.

The official reports of the debates of Congress have been published under the following titles: Annals of Congress (1789—1823), Congressional Debates (1824-1837), Congressional Globe (1833-1873), Congressional Record (1873 to the present time). Benton's Abridgment of Debates in 16 volumes covers the period 1789 to 1850.

McPherson's Handbook of Politics, already cited, contains accounts of the more important debates in Congress. Printed copies of bills and reports of committees can be obtained upon application. For the best descriptions of the practical working of Congress, see Bryce's American Commonwealth, and Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government. In both of these works our committee method of congressional legislation is compared with the English method of Parliamentary legislation under the leadership of a responsible ministry. The conclusions obtained from this comparison by the latter author, are especially unfavorable to the United States. Other references to works comparing English and American methods of legislation, are Snow's Defence of Congressional Government, published in the papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. IV; A.L. Lowell's Essays on Government; Bagehot's English Constitution; Bourinot's article, Canada and the United States, Scottish Review, July, 1890, and Annals of the American Academy of Social Science, No. I; and an article by Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Shall We Americanize Our Institutions? Nineteenth Century, December, 1890. The Congressional Directory, published annually, contains much handy information regarding the constitution and officers of Congress, and of the various federal departments at Washington. For an account of the work done during the last session (1889-90), see North American Review, November, 1890. Regarding the recent controversy on the power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to count as present members in the hall, but not answering to the roll-call, see the North American Review for October, 1889; the Nos. for March, May, July, August and October, 1890, also contain interesting articles on the same subject.

Executive Departments.

Of especial and authoritative value is the report of a select committee of the Senate to Enquire into and Examine the Methods of Business and Work in the Executive Departments, in 3 vols., known as Cockrell's Report, or Senate Report 507, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., and also a supplementary report in one volume, dated March 28, 1889. For other official sources of information, see the annual reports of the various departments, and of the individual bureaus. See also special reports mentioned in the text. On diplomatic relations, see the annual report of the Secretary of State On Foreign Relations, and Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers (1776-1887), published by the same department. The Consular Reports, issued from time to time by the State Department, are of value as furnishing economic information regarding foreign countries. The reports of the Secretary of the Treasury are of extreme statistical and financial value. For handy use the Statistical Abstract is issued annually by the Treasury Department. The reports published by the Department of State, of the International Conferences of 1878, and of 1881, and that of Edward Atkinson on The Present Status of Bimetalism in Europe (1887), are of especial value upon monetary topics. In 1886 the Treasury Department issued a volume of Laws Relating to Loans, and the Currency, Coinage and Banking. Besides his annual report the Director of the Mint publishes annually a report on the Production of Gold and Silver in the United States. For an account of the Sub-Treasury system, see Bolle's Financial History of the United States. Concerning the evils of this system, see an article by Prof. J.L. Laughlin in the North American Review, Vol. 137, p. 552.

Regarding the Silver Question and other important public questions coming within the province of the Treasury Department, information can be derived from recent periodicals. Poole's Index to Periodical Literature should also be consulted. An interesting account of the Pension Office is contained in the Atlantic Monthly, January, 1890. Regarding the Interstate Commerce Commission, see the book by Don Passes in Putnam's "Questions of the Day" series. See also Political Science Quarterly, Vol. II, pp. 223 and 369.

The Eleventh Census is now being compiled, and Bulletins are issued from time to time by the superintendent. Postmaster-General Wanamaker has recently issued a pamphlet in support of a Limited Post and Telegraph.

Concerning the constitutional powers possessed by executive officers, see A. Conkling's Powers of the Executive Departments; de Chambrun's The Executive Power, and chapter VII of Willoughby's Supreme Court of the United States. The Official Register of the United States, issued annually in two large volumes, contains the names and positions of all persons in federal employment. The second volume is devoted exclusively to the Postal Service. Very many of the government reports mentioned in this note will be sent to any address upon application.

A descriptive catalogue of all government publications arranged in chronological order, from 1774 to 1881, was prepared by B.P. Poore and published by the government.

Federal Judiciary.

Among the treatises upon the practical working of the Federal Judiciary are: B.R. Curtis' Federal Courts; Bryce's American Commonwealth; and Willoughby's Supreme Court of the United States, already referred to. For an excellent description of the relations between the Federal and State courts, see Chamberlain's lecture published in The Constitutional History of the United States as seen in the Development of its Law. The reports of decisions of cases tried in the Supreme Court are contained in one hundred and thirty-three volumes. Until 1875, these volumes were known by the names of the reporters, viz.: Dallas, Cranch, Wheaton, Peters, Howard, Black, and Wallace. Since 1875 they have been designated simply as United States Reports.

Ordinance of 1787.

For text and comments see Old South Leaflet No 13 (Heath & Co., price five cents). For The United States Constitution and the Ordinance of 1787 in Relation to Education, see Magazine of American History, September, 1888. See also Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. III; pamphlets by Dr. Poole and F.D. Stone, and Sato's History of the Land Question in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV.

Territories.

The reports of the Governors of the various territories to the Secretary of the Interior furnish an official source of information. Regarding the government of, and conditions of admission of territories as States, see especially Bannatyne's Republican Institutions in the United States.

State Governments.

For the text of State constitutions see B.P. Poore's Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Lows of the United States, in two vols. (1877), published by the government. For further information regarding State constitutions consult Davis' American Constitutions, in the Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series III; Jameson's Introduction to the Constitutional and Political History of the States, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV; and Hitchcock's American State Constitutions (Putnam's "Questions of the Day" series). See also of course Bryce's American Commonwealth. For Recent Tendencies in State Activities, see paper by W.F. Willoughby, to be published in the "Papers of the American Historical Association," Vol. V., and articles by Dr. Albert Shaw, entitled American State Legislatures, in Contemporary Review, October, 1889, and The American State and the American Man, in the same review for May, 1887. The Forum for November, 1890, contains an interesting description of the Six New States, by Senator Cullom. For histories of the individual States, see the series of "American Commonwealths," edited by H.E. Scudder, and published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Those for Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Kansas, California, Maryland, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Colorado, Oregon, and Virginia, have already appeared.

Local Government.

Among authorities on Local Government are various monographs upon this subject in the several States, contributed to the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. See also Bryce and Bannatyne.

City Government.

See J.H.U. Studies, Vol. IV, Nos. 4, 10; Vol. V, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4; Vol. VII, Nos. 1, 3, 4. Also supplementary volume, Philadelphia, 1681-1887: a History of Municipal Development, by Allinson and Penrose. Simon Sterne has an able article on "Cities" in Lalor's Encyclopaedia. See also chapters in Bryce's great work, and articles in the Political Science Quarterly for June, 1887, and June, 1889; Forum, Vol. II, pp. 260, 539; and Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1890.

The report of the New York Commission on "A Plan for a New Government of New York," 1876, is valuable, as are also several of ex-Mayor Hewitt's messages. Prof. Gniest has a suggestive article on Berlin, the best governed city in the world, in the Contemporary Review, Vol. 46. Shaw's article on Glasgow in the Century, March, 1890, is likewise instructive. Spofford's City of Washington and Growth of United States Cities is interesting. Ely's Taxation in American States and Cities contains many excellent suggestions for improvements in our methods of municipal administration. See also Ely's Problems of To-day. Putnam is publishing a series entitled Great Cities of the Republic. The Stories of New York, Boston and Washington have thus far appeared.

Government Revenue and Expenditure.

Federal and State finance reports furnish official information. Seligman's Finances of American States and Cities, published by the American Statistical Association, 1890, is valuable, and furnishes excellent statistical and tabulated information. Ely's Taxation in American States and Cities contains much information. Spofford's article on The Budget in Lalor's Encyclopaedia is extremely instructive. H.C. Adams' Public Debts is one of the ablest financial works in the English language. The proper administration of Federal and State finances is discussed, and the subject of national and local debts considered. Bolle's Financial History of the United States, in three large volumes, is an able work, and can be consulted with profit.

Census Bulletins, Nos. 6 and 7, describe respectively The Indebtedness of States in 1880 and 1890, and The Financial Condition of Counties.

Money.

See reports of the Director of the Mint, and of the Comptroller of the Currency. See also Knox's United States Notes; Simmer's History of American Currency, and text-books on Political Economy.

Public Lands of the United States.

Sato's History of the Land Question in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV, is the best book for reference. The official source of information regarding the public lands is Donaldson's enormous report of 1341 pages on The Public Domain: its History with Statistics (1884), published by the government (House Executive Documents 47, Part 4, 46th Congress, 3d Session.) For a short account of The Disposition of Our Public Lands, see an article by A.B. Hart, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887. Statistical tables are appended to this article.

Reconstruction.

See Johnston's article in Lalor's Encyclopaedia, and authorities there cited. Also McPherson's History of Reconstruction, Dunning's United Stales Constitution in Civil War and in Reconstruction, and W.E. Foster's References on the United States Constitution in Civil War, about to be published (1891).

Party Machinery and National Conventions.

See especially Bryce's American Commonwealth, and Ostrogorski's Organisation des parties politiques aux Etats-Unis. On the Caucus see Whitridge's The Caucus System, published as "Economic Tract" No. 8, by the Society for Political Education, New York.

Political Parties.

Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America contains a short history of political parties by Professor Alexander Johnston. See also Johnston's admirable manual, History of American Politics, a book especially adapted for school use. Von Holst's Constitutional and Political History of the United States, six volumes, contains the most comprehensive treatment of the history of political parties. Schouler's History of the United States under the Constitution, is an exceedingly able and interesting work. Four volumes bring this history down to 1847. The fifth volume soon to appear, will bring the narrative down to the Civil War.

The first volume of Von Holst is especially interesting, as giving statements of the various theories held regarding the origin and nature of our constitution. Upon Nullification and Secession, see Von Holst's Life of Calhoun; Stephens' War between the States; Greeley's American Conflict; McPherson's Political History of the Rebellion; and articles in Lalor's Encyclopaedia. The American Statesman Series, now being published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., contains valuable biographies of leading American statesmen. See especially in this series Schurz's Henry Clay; Morse's Jefferson; Lodge's Webster; and Von Holst's Calhoun. Upon the Economic contrasts between the North and South, see Von Holst's Constitutional History, Vol. I, Chapters IX and X. Taussig's History of the Tariff, gives the best history of this much debated subject.

THE END