Chapter VI: Section 99: The legislature shall not elect any other than its (1)

own officers, state librarian and United States Senators; but
this section shall not prohibit the legislature from appointing
presidential electors.

All the judges of the state, except justices of the peace, are appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. Mississippi was, it may be mentioned parenthetically, the first state to provide for an elective judiciary; this was done in her constitution of 1832; but she is now as far away from that mode of selection as she can well be, her present constitution providing for their appointment and her people generally, it is believed, are thoroughly satisfied with the present status of the matter. There are two instances in which the electors vote directly upon the subject of the enforcement of laws; and without an affirmative vote in their favor the statutes are not enforced. These are, first the Local Option law, by which the qualified electors of a county, if a majority vote against the sale, may prohibit the licensing of dram-shops in the county, and under which a large majority of the counties of the state have secured absolute statutory prohibition of the liquor traffic; and, second, the fence and stock law, by which is determined the question of whether the owners of live stock shall keep them confined, and thus allow of the production of crops on unenclosed lands. This resolves itself into a question of "fences" or "no fences," and it is left to a vote in the counties, or parts of counties can vote upon it. This question is left to "the resident freeholders and leaseholders for a term of three years or more" of the territory so voting. It will be noticed that neither sex nor age is mentioned, and in truth women and infants do actually vote in the state, on this interesting and to those involved, most serious question.

The Supreme Court of the state has settled beyond cavil that the statute is constitutional and valid. This "fence" or "no fence" election is possibly an exception to the general rule of the state that a plurality vote elects or carries. I say, possibly is an exception, because of ambiguity in the statute, construed as I think it may be seen by some minds, it will require two thirds of the vote cast to put the "no fence" law in force.

All elections in Mississippi since 1821 have been by ballot, and this is now the constitutional rule; we have here the Australian or secret ballot system very much as it is found in a number of states of the Union, and it accomplishes in its practical operation the primary objects of the system; first, the absolute prevention of bribery, for no man will bribe a voter if the only evidence of the delivery of the contracted-for vote be the word of the bribe taker, and, second, the prevention of intimidation of voters, which is practically impossible.

The absence from the voting place since the introduction of the system of the ticket broker and professional bummer is notable.

It was the intention of the writer when this article was begun to present his views on many of the questions suggested and germain to the general subject, but this paper has now grown so long that he will have to be content with a presentation of a mere historical narrative of matters pertaining to suffrage in this state. He consoles himself with the reflection that perhaps such a contribution may be more valuable to the true and earnest student of the subject than would be any discourse that he might write which in its nature was sought to be made philosophical, or which was merely speculative. If the facts are presented, if the history be made accessible, the student who is interested enough to read will draw the proper conclusions.

SPANISH POLICY IN MISSISSIPPI AFTER THE TREATY OF SAN LORENZO.

BY FRANKLIN L. RILEY, PH. D.

October 16, 1795,[1] Thomas Pinckney, in behalf of the United States and the Prince of Peace, representing His Catholic Majesty, signed at San Lorenzo el Real, a treaty which contained among other things, the following stipulations:

"The southern boundary of the United States, which divides
their territory from the Spanish colonies of East and West
Florida, shall be designated by a line beginning on the River
Mississippi at the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree
of latitude north of the equator, which from thence shall be
drawn due east to the River Apalachicola," etc.

"If there should be any troops, garrisons or settlements of
either party in the territory of the other according to the
above-mentioned boundaries, they shall be withdrawn from
the said territory within the term of six months after the
ratification of this treaty, or sooner if possible."

"One Commissioner and one Surveyor shall be appointed by each
of the contracting parties, who shall meet at the Natchez on
the left side of the River Mississippi before the expiration of
six months from the ratification of this convention and they
shall proceed to run and mark this boundary according to the
stipulations."

"The navigation of the said (Mississippi) River, in its whole
breadth from its source to the ocean shall be free only to his
(Catholic Majesty) subjects and the citizens of the United
States, unless he should extend this privilege to the subjects
of other Powers by special convention."

"The two high contracting parties shall____maintain peace
and harmony among the several Indian nations who inhabit the
country adjacent to____the boundaries of the two Floridas." "No
treaty of alliance or other whatever (except treaties of peace)
shall be made by either party with the Indians living within
the boundary of the other."

These terms, so favorable to the United States and so destructive of Spanish interests, had long been the rock upon which all plans for an adjustment of the differences between the two powers had been stranded.[2] Nor were they finally extorted from Spain until a concurrence of unfavorable events had precipitated a diplomatic crisis. Even then his Catholic Majesty seemed to consider such stipulations as only a temporary expedient, the fulfillment of which he hoped eventually to be able to evade. The Prince of Peace himself admits that political circumstances forced Spain to consent to the treaty and intimates further that he would have made even greater concessions if they had been demanded by the United States. In writing of these negotiations, he says:

"I had taken to heart the treaty (Jay's), which unknown to us
the English cabinet had negotiated with the United States of
America; this treaty afforded great latitude to evil designs;
it was possible to injure Spain in an indirect manner and
without risk, in her distant possessions.

"I endeavored to conclude another treaty with the same states,
and had the satisfaction to succeed in my object; _I obtained
unexpected advantages_, and met with sympathy, loyalty, and
generous sentiments in that nation of Republicans."

Subsequent events proved, however, that Godoy had overestimated the probabilities of a consolidation of interests between the United States and Great Britain, and that Spain had also failed to gain that ascendency over the affairs of this "nation of republicans," which she hoped to do through this treaty.[3] She was therefore no longer interested in fulfilling its stipulations. These facts are substantiated by a letter which Stoddard[4] claims was written by Governor Gayoso in June, 1796, to a confidential friend, and which came to light several years afterward. In this communication Gayoso claims that:

"The object of Great Britain in her treaty with the United
States about this period, was to attach them to her interests,
and even render them dependent on her, and, therefore, the
Spanish treaty of limits was made to counterbalance it; but as
Great Britain had totally failed in her object it was not the
policy of Spain to regard her stipulations."[5]

In order to evade the treaty, she now returned to a line of policy which she had adopted several years previous[6] and which had also been tried by more than one foreign power[7] since the combined efforts of England, France and Spain to "coop up" the United States between the Alleghanies and the Atlantic, at the close of the Revolutionary War.[8] This was nothing less than a dismemberment of the United States. But the accomplishment of this bold project required time. She, therefore, resorted to her historic policy of procrastination, hoping ultimately to evade the treaty and thus regain what had been wrested from her in diplomacy. She was fully aware of the dissatisfaction the western states had expressed over the tardiness and at times the apparent indifference of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi[9] and she also realized that the publication of the treaty "would bring her project of dismemberment to a crisis and in a manner to compel the western people to make a decided election to adhere to the Atlantic states or to embrace the splendid advantages held out to them on the Mississippi."[10] Hence, upon the announcement of the treaty in New Orleans, a Spanish emissary was immediately dispatched from that place to Tennessee and Kentucky, with authority to engage the services of the principal inhabitants in a scheme to disaffect the people towards the United States by the free use of money and promises of independence and free trade.[11] In Gayoso's letter of June, 1796, referred to above, the assertion was made that,

"It was expected that several states would separate from the
union, which would absolve Spain from her engagements;
because, as her contract was made with the union, it would
be no longer obligatory than while the union lasted. That
Spain, contrary to her expectations, was not likely to derive
any advantages from the treaty, and that her views and
policy would be changed, particularly if an alteration took
place in the political existence of the United States. He
therefore concluded, that all things considered, nothing more
would result from the treaty than the free navigation of the
Mississippi."[12]

A second line of policy for evading the treaty was then opened up. This was to postpone an execution of its stipulations awaiting the development of certain international complications which seemed to be inevitable. There had been a rupture in the diplomatic relation of the United States and France and hostilities between these two countries seemed to be near at hand. Mr. Pickering, who was Secretary of State from 1795 to 1800, considered this the real cause for delay on the part of Spain, after contending that the other reasons given by the Spanish authorities were "merely ostensible," he says:

"The true reason is doubtless developed by the Baron (de
Corondelet)[13] in his proclamation of the 31st of May (1797).
_The expectation of an immediate rupture between France, the
intimate ally of Spain, and the United States._"[14]

By making common cause with France, in case of such a rupture, Spain evidently thought that she could recover some of the concessions she had made in the treaty, if compliance with its stipulations should not be too far effected.

In order to find time for the operation of these schemes, the Spanish officials produced, from time to time, such excuses as either the treaty or the circumstances rendered plausible. After months of fruitless delay, they determined to rest their final action upon the results of another effort to detach the western states from the Union. An emissary was again sent to Tennessee and Kentucky to confer with certain men who were former correspondents of the governors of Louisiana. He found, however, that the people were less disposed towards a change than they were ten years previous, especially since they were likely to secure the navigation of the Mississippi,--the real cause of their former disaffection--without resorting to a hazardous enterprise. After an eventful sojourn in this region, he returned to New Orleans in January, 1798, bearing the unwelcome report which convinced the Governor General that Spain had lost all hope of political prestige in the territory north of the 31st degree and east of the Mississippi.[15] Arrangements were then perfected for the execution of the treaty.

In the light of the Spanish policy as presented above, local events may be easily interpreted. As time was an indispensable condition upon which the success of this policy depended, it was gained by various pretexts. Don Yrujo, the Spanish minister, intrigued at Philadelphia, and his efforts were ably seconded by Carondelet, Gayoso[16] and a host of subordinate officials on the Mississippi.

In accordance with a stipulation of the treaty, President Washington appointed the Honorable Andrew Ellicott[17] as Commissioner to run the boundary line in behalf of the United States. He left Philadelphia for Natchez by way of the Ohio and the Mississippi, September 16, 1796. But his descent of the Mississippi had been anticipated by the Spaniards, who had prepared obstructive measures in advance of his coming. So that whenever he came in contact with Spanish officials they evinced a disposition to hinder his descent of the river, if not prevent it altogether.[18] Some of them affected ignorance of the treaty, others appeared embarrassed at the presence of the Americans, while none of them had made or were making, so far as the Commissioner could observe, any preparations to evacuate the posts according to the terms of the treaty.

Before reaching his destination, Ellicott received a communication from Governor Gayoso, expressing his gratification at the arrival of the Commissioner in those waters and requesting that the military escort accompanying him should be left at the mouth of the Bayou Pierre, sixty miles above Natchez, in order to prevent an "unforeseen misunderstanding" between the troops of the two nations. Since the treaty had provided for such an escort, this request was deemed improper by Ellicott. He yielded the point, however, for the time being, out of deference to the wishes of the Governor.[19]

Upon his arrival at Natchez, February 24, 1797, ten months after the ratification of the treaty, he found no one ready to co-operate with him in the performance of the duty assigned. To the contrary, he learned through private sources that the Baron de Carondelet, the Governor General of Louisiana, had declared that the treaty was never intended to be carried into effect, that as Commissioner on the part of Spain, he would evade or delay from one pretense or another, the running of the boundary line until the treaty would become "a dead letter," and that Louisiana either had been, or would soon be ceded to France.[20]

About this time a suggestive and characteristic event occurred which gives an insight into the temper of both the Spanish Governor and the American Commissioner. About two hours after the flag of the United States had been hoisted over the Commissioner's camp, Gayoso requested that it be lowered. This request met with a flat refusal, and though there were rumors of parties being formed to cut it down, "the flag wore out upon the staff."[21] Gayoso explained, a fortnight later, that his objection to the flag was not prompted by a desire to show a discourtesy to the United States, but to prevent any unbecoming conduct on the part of the Indians.[22] This explanation, however, seems to have been an after-thought. Suffice it to say, when it was offered the Indians had become so troublesome that Ellicott had determined to send for his escort. The Governor, after declaring that he would construe their descent as an insult to his master,[23] and then suggesting that they might with propriety join the Commissioner at Loftus Cliffs, near Clarksville, finally consented that they go into camp at Bacon's Landing, a few miles below town.[24] This put an end to the efforts of the Spaniards to draw Ellicott away from Natchez, the place designated by the treaty for the meeting of the commissioners.[25]

After the lapse of a fortnight from the time of his arrival, Ellicott was informed that the Spanish Commissioner, the Baron de Carondelet, was detained in New Orleans in the discharge of duties incident to the war then waging between Spain and Great Britain, and that in his absence the business of the survey would devolve upon Governor Gayoso.[26] March 19, had been settled upon as the time when the commissioners would begin operation, but with this change of commissioner, Gayoso gave notice that it would be impossible to proceed at the time appointed. He promised, however, to be ready at an early day. But, before these preparations were perfected, Spanish finesse had discovered a new reason for delay. This in turn was followed by others until May 11, when Ellicott was finally informed that the business upon which he had come was postponed indefinitely, awaiting further orders from the ministers of the two powers concerned.[27] These pretexts having varied from time to time, it would be well to present them in one view.[28]

I. NECESSITY OF AWAITING THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR SECURING THE INHABITANTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS.

This reason was first given in a proclamation issued by Governor Gayoso on the 28th of March, 1797, but bearing the Gate of the day following. It was reiterated in a second proclamation of the same date. Yet, when the Secretary of State, two and a half months later, received from Commissioner Ellicott a notice of this reason for delay, he declared that no such negotiation had existed and that it was the first time these objections to the evacuation of the posts had been heard of.[29] Two months later still he observed that,

"As____the great body of the inhabitants (of the territory)
appear not to desire the patronage of the Spanish Government
to secure it (their real estate); as the Government of the
United States must be at least as anxious as that of Spain to
protect the inhabitants in their rights when (they) become
citizens of the United States ... there can be no difficulty in
deciding whether this is a reason or a pretense. Besides, the
negotiation ... has never existed; nor even been proposed or
hinted either to or by the Government of the United States."[30]

Orders were promptly issued, however, by the President and the Secretary of War to assure Governor Gayoso that no person would be "disturbed in his possession or property, till an opportunity had been afforded to apply to Congress," and that they might "rely upon their claims being adjusted upon the most equitable principles."[31]

II, DESIRE OF FIRST ESTABLISHING FRIENDLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INDIANS AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE TERRITORY TO BE CEDED[32].

On this subject Gayoso asserted that it was "impossible for His Catholic Majesty to leave unprotected so many of his faithful subjects and expose other settlements to the revengeful disposition of discontented Indians." He therefore felt justified in retaining possession of the country until he might be sure the savages would be pacific.[33] The Secretary of State contended that such a reason would warrant the assertion, that "the Governor meant, for an indefinite period to avoid an evacuation of the posts: for, while a tribe of Indians existed in that quarter, the Governor could not be _sure_ that they would be pacific."[34] He observed further, that,

/# "Upon a view of the whole correspondence ... submitted to
the President, it appears that there is but too much reason to
believe ... that an undue influence has been exercised over
the Indians by the officers of His Catholic Majesty to prepare
them for a rupture with the United States, those suspicions
corresponding with other intelligence recently received by the
Secretary of War and by me."[35]

Instructions were issued by the Secretary of War to assure the Spanish Commandant that effort would be made "to preserve a continuance of the pacific dispositions of the Indians within our limits, towards the subjects of His Catholic Majesty or his Indians; and to prevent their commencing hostilities (of which there is no appearance) against either."[36]

III. NECESSITY OF CONSULTING THE KING CONCERNING THE CONDITION IN WHICH THE FORTS WERE TO BE SURRENDERED.[37]

The treaty failed to specify whether the posts should be surrendered with the buildings and fortifications intact, or whether they should first be dismantled. Gayoso declared that a treaty with the Indians required a demolition of the post at Walnut Hill and that orders had been issued to that effect, but that owing to their unsettled dispositions he had received counter orders to prevent the fortifications from being injured.[38] General Wayne took the position that the posts should be left standing.[39] President Adams, however, left the matter entirely to the discretion of the Spanish officials, and thus at once brought an end to the validity of this excuse.[40] On this sub-Secretary Pickering maintained:

"It is probably the first time that to 'withdraw,' or retire
from a place, has been imagined to intend its destruction. If,
at the formation of the treaty, the demolition of the posts had
been intended, it would assuredly have been expressed."[41]

When the Spaniards had really decided to surrender the district, no further mention was made of this subject, showing that, notwithstanding their treaty with the Indians, they considered the demolition of the forts of no consequence whatever.

IV. EXPECTATION OF AN ATTACK UPON LOUISIANA BY A BRITISH FORCE FROM CANADA.

Suspicion to this effect, though based upon reports more or less vague, had been expressed by the Spanish Minister as early as the February preceding; and had been reiterated by him from time to time,[42] until at the expiration of three months, it had developed into a pretext for delaying the execution of the treaty. In fact, the Baron de Carondelet asserted in a proclamation of May 24, that further delay in surveying the boundary line and in evacuating the forts was then occasioned only by the imperious necessity of securing Lower Louisiana, in case the British should become masters of the Illinois country[43] and that such apprehensions had caused him to put the post at Walnut Hills "in a respectable but provisional state of defence."[44] Secretary Pickering not only considered these suspicions groundless, but contended further that,

"If the posts of the Natchez and Walnut Hills 'are the
only bulwarks of Lower Louisiana, to stop the course of the
British,' as the Baron alerts and if, therefore, Spain is
justifiable in holding them, she may retain them, without any
limitation of time, for her security in any future war, as well
as in that which now exists."[45]

Before the appearance of the Baron's proclamation containing this reason for delay, the Spanish Minister had been informed that the Secretary of State saw no reasons for such suspicions and the British Minister had been notified that the Government of the United States would suffer neither British nor Spanish troops to march through its territory for the purpose of hostility of one against the other.[46] The Spanish Minister replied[47], however, that he knew to a certainty that the English had made a proposition to General Clarke of Georgia in order to secure his influence in that State in a proposed attack against Florida. At the request of Mr. Pickering, this report was investigated by the District Attorney of Georgia. He replied that he could not find any one who knew of the matter or who entertained a belief of the report; and that from General Clark's known violent antipathies to the English and other circumstances, he doubted the truthfulness of it altogether.[48]

When the attention of Mr. Liston, the British Minister, was directed to the subject, he pointedly denied that his government either had intended or was then intending to invade Louisiana.[49] A few days later, however, he admitted that a plan for attacking the Floridas and other Spanish possessions adjoining the United States had been submitted to him by other persons, whom he declined to name, but stated it was discountenanced by him because its success depended upon a violation of the neutrality of the United States and an enlistment of the Indians. According to this plan, the expedition was to be undertaken by a British sea force, which would be joined by such volunteers of the United States as would join the king's standard when raised on Spanish soil.[50]

The noted conspiracy of Senator Blount of Tennessee then came to light[51] and precipitated a spirited discussion between the Spanish Minister and Mr. Pickering. The former contended that the plot had been revealed and that no one any longer doubted that the expedition was to have taken place,[52] while the latter maintained that there could have been no connection between Blount's scheme and either the expedition from Canada,[53] or the project attributed to General Clarke.[54] The Secretary argued in support of his position that Blount's expedition was to have been formed in one of the states south of the River Ohio; that it was destined against the Floridas, and perhaps Lower Louisiana; that Blount himself expected to be at the head of it; that it was not to be undertaken but in conjunction with a British force; and that "on the proposal of the expedition to the British Government, it was totally rejected."[55] He maintained further that the suspicion of a British invasion from Canada was groundless for the following reasons:--(1) Preparations for such an expedition would have attracted attention and rendered satisfactory proofs attainable; (2) the troops of the United States, stationed along the Canadian border, were in position to protect the frontier, as well as to get information of any warlike preparations and communicate the same to the Secretary of War, yet no such communications had been made; (3) the British did not have on the lakes a force adequate to such an enterprise; (4) the routes suggested for such a campaign would have interposed great difficulties for the transportation of troops, equipage, provisions, etc., even if they could have been taken without violating the territory of the United States; and (5) the British Minister, after inquiring of the Governor General of Canada and of "the British Secretary of State," denied that his Government either had intended or was then intending such an expedition.[56]

V. FEAR OF AN ATTACK FROM THE UNITED STATES.

In the Spring of 1797, certain American troops were sent from the Ohio into Tennessee for the purpose of preventing a forced settlement upon the Cherokee lands. Orders were also given the Cumberland militia to hold itself in readiness to prevent similar encroachments.[57] These facts were seized upon by Carondelet, who asserted in a proclamation of May 31, that since the United States was at peace with all the savages, these movements must concern the Spanish provinces. To make this pretext more plausible, the proclamation also made mention of "the anterior menaces" of the representatives of the United States at Natchez;[58] of the expected rupture between that Power and France, the intimate ally of Spain; and of the recognition by the United States of the right of England to navigate the Mississippi, which, the Baron adds, "appears to annul" the treaty with His Catholic Majesty, by which the United States acknowledged that "no other nation can navigate upon the Mississippi without the consent of Spain."[59]

Secretary Pickering regarded the expectation of a rupture between the United States and France as the real cause of the delay in running the boundary and in evacuating the posts.[60] With reference to any hostile intentions on the part of the United States, he wrote,

"Never, perhaps, was conceived a more absurd idea, than that
of marching troops from the Ohio to the State of Tennessee,
and thence to the Natchez, in the whole a tedious, difficult
and expensive route of many hundred miles, chiefly through a
wilderness; when, if the United States had any hostile views,
they had only to collect their troops to the Ohio, and suffer
them to be floated down that river and the Mississippi, almost
without labor, with great expedition, and at small expense, to
the county to be attacked."[61]

These pretexts were usually accompanied by a profusion of promises and explanations which rendered them more or less plausible. Besides this, the Spaniards on more than one occasion made appearances of beginning the evacuation.[62] Although declaring that nothing could prevent the religious fulfilment of the treaty, they were, at the same time, strengthening their fortifications and augmenting their forces on the river. Under such circumstances, the presence of American soldiers and officers was not desired. This fact explains the efforts of Governor Gayoso to prevent Ellicott's escort from reaching Natchez and the attempts to entice the Commissioner himself away from that place.[63]

He had scarcely failed in these schemes, however, when he heard of the descent of Lieutenant Pope with a small detachment of American troops to take charge of the posts upon their evacuation. He then sent Ellicott an open letter directed to Pope, in which it was stated that "for sundry reasons it would be proper and conduce to the harmony of the two nations" for these troops to remain at a distance until the posts were evacuated, which would be completed in a few days. But instead of complying with the Governor's request to second this effort at harmony, Ellicott wrote to Pope that there was evidence to show that an evacuation was not really intended in any reasonable time and that in his opinion the sooner the American troops reached Natchez the better.[64] Upon receiving the Governor's letter Pope stopped his detachment at the Walnut Hills. April 17, Ellicott wrote a second letter stating that a rupture with the Spanish authorities at Natchez was near at hand and that in his opinion the Lieutenant could better serve his country at Natchez than at any other point on the river.[65] In response to this letter, Pope and his command resumed their descent, the Governor finally consenting, and reached Natchez April 24, 1797.[66]

Such are the general outlines of the contest that was waged between the representatives of the two powers over the dilatory policy of Spain. Subsequent diplomatic discussion centered on the navigation of the Mississippi and the affairs at Natchez assumed the form of a popular outbreak against the established government in the district.

TIME AND PLACE RELATIONS IN HISTORY, WITH SOME LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI APPLICATIONS

PROF. H. E. CHAMBERS.

A student or writer of history, imbued with the true and scientific spirit of historical research and expression, would hesitate to accept the task of compiling the narrative of a State or country if it were required of him to confine himself strictly to local events. He would, indeed, find it difficult to isolate the facts bearing upon the State or country from their antecedents, distant in time and space, or from their consequents when communicated to contemporaneous and succeeding communities, or social organizations.

The great stream of human affairs is a tide of many currents. He who would pilot by his pen the reading multitude must note the crossings and the blendings, the counter-runnings and the parallelings. He cannot take an arbitrary stand and say that this tide of affairs began in this place and ended in that; or that this course of events began in such a year and ended in such another. Back of every motion is an impelling power. Back of every individual action lies the basic principles of human conduct. Back of every manifestation of corporate activity may be found a pulsive social force. Neither individual nor social movement can be studied understandingly alone. Each forms a link in a chain whose beginning and end may not be clearly seen, but whose continuity may be inferred from upholding and depending contiguous links.

This continuity when once perceived enables us to bring into relation widely associated ideas. For instance, the history of Oregon, through the first English explorer of its shores, leads us to the point where the intense vitality of the English nation was first directed to securing the naval supremacy of the world. The history of any one of our north-central States introduces us to the follies, fashions, and ambitions of the French Court under several Louises; to a long series of moves in one of the most complicated games ever played upon the chess-board of European politics; and to the most critical period in American affairs when Virginia by generously renouncing an empire appeased discordant and jealous elements and made possible the formation of the Federal Union. Patrick Henry's passionate plea for liberty was but the echo of the clarion call which rang over Runnymede centuries before, and this call was but the voicing of an idea which dominated the most primitive of Teutonic peoples in the remotest past. And so I might make innumerable citations to show that the present is but the heir to the past; and that what is, stands in close relation to what has been.

If time relations may be demonstrated by the association of remotely associated ideas, or by tracing modern institutional fruitage to their root points buried in the soil of the past, then may other correlations be as easily established.

The idea of place as a background to historic treatment has, to a certain extent, undergone change. The former conception has been that of a region with artificial bounds established by accident, treaty, or legislative enactment. The more modern conception is that of a physiographic area whose limits nature herself has fixed and within whose confines fundamental ethnic ideas crystalized into institutional, social, political, and religious forms have reached or are reaching complete or incomplete expression.

Every great civilization that has ever arisen is or has been a composite civilization. Isolate an individual, a community, a people, or a race and no matter how favorable may be the circumstances and environment, the advance made will only be so far and no further, the final point of which advance is characterized by rigidity of thought, fixity of forms, and slavish repetition of actions. The greater Chinese Wall of non-intercourse encircling the Mongolian nation for centuries cast the civilization of the Flowery Kingdom into molds of monotony whose stiffness has yielded only to the breaking of Occidental hammers upon Chinese commercial portals.

The autocthonous civilization of Peru and Mexico hardly attained the dignity of semi-barbarism. What might the Inca or Aztec have become had the influx of European culture-impulses reached his mind before its plasticity was lost, or had the gifts of acquired experience and knowledge been brought to him by hands guiltless of his scourging and innocent of his blood?

On the other hand, let an individual mingle with his fellows; a race or community enters into political or commercial relation with its neighbors, the divine sparks struck off by the attrition of mind with mind kindle the fires which illumine the spiritual in man and sets in motion the machinery of human progress. What student of history fails to recognize the influence of Phoenician letters and Egyptian thought upon Greek civilization; of Greek literature and ideals upon Roman character and development; of Roman genius for organization and talent for legal forms upon modern enlightened nations; of whatever was best in the past upon whatever is best in the life and thought and aspirations of the present.

Egypt began to advance when caravans first made their way to her over heated outlying deserts, for these brought to her something more than myrrh and incense, and precious fabrics. Greece developed with phenomenal rapidity as soon as her galleys sprinkled the blue waters of the Mediterranean, for with every incoming freight came a whisper of rudimentary art or culture which she forthwith clothed in beautiful form and language. England was provincial and primitive until her commercial supremacy made her the bearer of civilization to every corner of the globe. She has received more than she has given. Look where we will, we see unmistakably the effects of action and reaction in the intercourse of nations and communities.

In taking up the history of any one state of the Union, then, we find it impossible to confine our observation to accidental or unrelated happenings, however these happenings may find careful chroniclings at the hands of local scribes and unphilosophic writers. We see the States as a part of a physiographic area having in common with other parts the determinative elements of soil and climate which by prescribing industries, affect desires, ambitions, thought, and other forms of human activity. We study community forces and estimate their quality and intensity as they find expression in characteristic social and political institutions. We consider the people in their racial attitude, anticipate similar results from similar motives as conforming to the spirit and experience of the ethnic type to which the majority of the people stand related. We regard the State as an organic whole, a corporate being related to other similarly constituted beings. Take what position we will, there come into our line of vision ideas, origins, effects, reactions, and relations which show us that a State's history extends indefinitely into the past and in the present ramifies to every part of the larger, body-politic of which it is a constituent member.

Apart from general principles there is a singular correlation between the history of this your State and the history of the one I so inadequately represent upon this occasion (First Annual Mid-Winter Meeting of the Mississippi State Historical Society). Both States were originally a part of that great continental heart of North America, that wilderness of empire-like extent, contended for by mighty nations in epoch-making struggles. Both owe their initial territorial organization to the commercial needs of the American people of a hundred years ago. Up to a certain point the history of the one is but the history of the other. The first settlement, paradoxical as it may seem, in Louisiana was made in Mississippi. De Soto crossed your State and died in ours. The same people who founded our city of New Orleans established your city of Natchez. The narratives of Bienville and Iberville are as closely associated with your history as they are with ours. The two principal Indian wars waged by the Louisiana colony were fought upon Mississippi soil. The first appointed governor of the Mississippi Territory was the first appointed governor of the Louisiana Territory. When under Spanish rule that portion of our domain known as the Florida parishes revolted, it was Reuben Kemper from your territory that rallied to the support of the revolutionists and struck such terror in the Spaniard's breast that Governor Folch of Mobile piteously appealed to the United States Government for protection. When the West Florida revolution was crowned with success and an addition of new territory to the United States resulted, Mississippi received her portion as well as Louisiana. When in the days of the American Revolution the notorious Willing came down from Philadelphia, ostensibly to protect but really to rob, our district of Baton Rouge felt his vulture clutch as keenly as did your district of Natchez. In later times, when our Zachary Taylor found himself upon the border lands of Mexico, an overwhelming foe in his front and war hardly yet declared, your riflemen under Jefferson Davis joined our Louisianian in rushing to his assistance, long before the general government moved to protect its own. We followed you out of the Union. Disaster to you was calamity to us. The cause of the Confederacy we shared in common. Our dead are sleeping together upon the old battlefields in every part of our Southland. We are common sharers of the heritage of brave deeds and undying memories. Your peerless citizen, the first and only president of the Confederate States, died in our arms and we gave him such sepulture that the continent trembled under the all-powerful force of sentiment. We have faced your dangers, felt your needs as only a people can whose interests are one with yours. The spirit that framed your present constitution is pulsing in our veins. And so, did the time limits of this paper permit, might I continue to enumerate indefinitely the instances in which History wipes out the boundary line by which maps unblushingly infer that we are two peoples, having separate interests and lines of thoughts. True history is broadening; never narrowing. It is because so much of Louisiana history is Mississippi history, and so much of Mississippi history is in the chronicles of Louisiana that the narrative of either State calls for so broad and liberal and inspiring a treatment at the hands of the historian.

THE STUDY AND TEACHING OF HISTORY.

BY HERBERT B. ADAMS, PH.D. Professor of History in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Among all the subjects of college study and college teaching, among all the means of liberal education fitting young men for civic life and public duty not one stands higher than the study and teaching of History.

In my senior year at Amherst College, President Julius H. Seelye gave my class a single lecture on the Philosophy of History. Among other good things he said: "History is the grandest study in the world." That remark made the profoundest impression upon my student imagination. I said to myself, "If History is the grandest study in the world, that is exactly the study I want." The good President proved his statement to my satisfaction by showing the relation of Greek and Roman civilizations to the spread of Christianity and the education of Europe.

In Germany I first learned the true method, and at the same time, the most practicable ways and means of studying and teaching history. Amid a pleasant variety of academic courses by brilliant lecturers like Kuno Fischer, Zeller, Ernst Curtius, Grimm, Treitschke, Droysen, Du Bois Raymond, Lepsius, and others, I somehow felt a lack of educational unity and system. There was need of some backbone to unite the skeleton of human deeds and historic experiences. This I found at last in the teachings of my old master, Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, at Heidelberg. In his lecture courses on the State, on the Constitutional Law, on Politics and on the International Law of Modern Civilized States, I first began to realize that government and law are the real forces which bind society and the world together. I began to see that the true unity of the world's life is to be found in the succession of States, Empires, Federations, and in the International Relations, which are slowly leading to such great aggregations as the United States of America and the United States of Europe. In Germany I learned from a reading of Bluntschli's various writing, including many noble articles in his Staatsworterbuch, that there is such a thing as the World-State now in process of evolution. From the published records of the Institute of International Law, of which Dr. Bluntschli was the president, and from a study of the subjects of Arbitration and International Tribunals, I thought I could dimly discern the beginnings of that Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World, of which the Poet Tennyson sings in his Locksley Hall.

When I came to Baltimore three ideas of study and teaching were uppermost in my mind: (1) the study of the origins of municipal life, in order to find out whether it was Roman or Germanic; (2) the study of the relations of Church and State, from their beginning down to the present, for I had learned to believe in Germany that the separation of civil from religious society is America's greatest contribution to the world's progress; (3) the continued study of art history for its own sake and as illustrating the history of civilization.

Out of the first of these ideas, developed by a reading of the works of Sir Henry Maine, has grown my Historical Seminary and a long series of University Studies in Historical and Political Science (chiefly on Municipal, Economic and Institutional themes). Out of the second idea evolved successive courses of lectures on Church and State, or Religion and Government in the Ancient and Graeco-Roman World, together with my whole system of graduate instruction upon the Early History of Society, Greek and Roman Polities, Jewish and Church History, and certain modern States like Prussia and France. The third idea never had a good chance for development until recent years when I have fairly begun to realize my original conception of illustrating in concrete, artistic ways the progress of civilization.

Goldwin Smith, in his Lecture on History, says there can be no philosophy of history until we realize the unity of the human race and that history must be studied as a whole. Twenty years ago, at the Johns Hopkins University, I began to teach Local History, as representative of Universal History. I began with New England Village Communities, with Plymouth Plantations, Salem and the Massachusetts Bay Towns, those little republics which seemed to me the very protoplasm of State life. The survival, continuity or revival of old Germanic forms of village settlement, with common fields and town commons, impressed my imagination and interested my students. They carried this kind of study into this State of Maryland and original papers by Maryland boys were published upon such subjects as Parishes, Manors, and other local institutions. These lines of inquiry were extended down the Atlantic seaboard to Virginia and the Carolinas. Gradually the field of interest has been widened from towns, plantations, parishes, and counties until now the constitutional, economic and educational history of entire States is in review or contemplation.

While I still believe in Local History and in limited subjects of student research, I now recognize more fully than I used to do, the importance of General History, especially for college students and college graduates in the early part of their course. After all, the great fact in History, as well as in Geography, is that the world is round. You must recognize all human experience on this globe as parts of one great whole, just as you recognize that the continents and outlying islands are but related parts of one vast geographical system. In every properly arranged course of school and college instruction in the domain of History, this doctrine of unity ought to be taken for granted. It is like the doctrine of divine unity in theology or in nature, like the sun in our heavens. It gives light and rationality to any and every course of study.

I used to think that it was the first duty of a boy to know the history of his own State and country; but I am now persuaded that he should know the history of mankind and of the world. Nobody would study geography or geology from a purely local point of view. You must have a consciousness of the whole in order to appreciate the parts of any subject. It is a mistake to imagine that a boy or girl cares most for what is nearest and most familiar. Children are always gifted with imagination. They rejoice in the thought of lands that are far off, of men who lived in olden times. They take the greatest pleasure in heroic tales of Cyrus and of Hannibal, of Horatius and of the great twin brethren, Castor and Pollux. Mythology, minstrelsy, Bible stories, and lives of great wariors, explorers, discoverers, inventors, these are of supreme interest to boys and girls. American History should be taught to American youth, but chiefly the heroic, the romantic, the biographical, in short the more human sides of our colonel and national life.

History begins and ends with Man. Biographical approaches to the world's life are the oldest, and best beaten paths for youth to follow. Carlyle and Froude are among the champions of the biographical method of studying and teaching History. When Froude succeeded Freeman at Oxford the biographical idea was at once brought to the front. Froude quoted Carlyle as saying: "The history of mankind is the history of its great men; to find out these, clean the dirt from them, and place them on their proper pedestals, is the true function of the historian." And Froude, the new professor, entered at once upon those splendid and inspiring courses of lectures, in which the personal and biographical elements entered so strongly.

Every American student should read Froude's lectures on "English Seamen in the Sixteenth Century," that brilliant account of Sir Francis Drake, Sir John Hawkins, and the great captains of England who gained a new world for Elizabeth and defeated the Spanish Armada. You should also read Froude's Lectures on the "Life and Letters of Erasmus" if you would understand the relation of the great religious reform to the new learning, which Erasmus represented.

Is it not wonderful that by reading a brief biography, which perhaps occupies our leisure hours for a week, we can grasp and understand the life-work of a great man? Think of it! A whole life in one book. A whole history is in one of Plutarch's chapters. By turning to that new series of biographies called "Heroes of the Nations," you can study or teach the lessons derived from the lives and characters of such great men as Pericles, Cicero, Julius Caesar, Julian the Philosopher, Theodoric the Goth, Wyclif, the first of the English reformers, Prince Henry the Navigator, Henry of Navarre, Sir Philip Sidney, Gustavus Adolphus, Napoleon, Nelson, and Lincoln. Another excellent biographical series is that called "English Men of Action," published by Macmillan, and containing such noble lives as those of Wolfe, the conqueror of Quebec; David Livingstone, the Explorer of Africa, Lord Lawrence and Sir Henry Havelock, the saviors of India; General Gordon, the Hero of Khartoum. If your taste runs toward literature, you should read select biographies in the series called "English Men of Letters," embracing such characters as Gibbon, Carlyle, Byron, Shelly, and Hume. There is a corresponding American series, edited by Charles Dudley Warner, and embracing such men as Washington Irving, J. Fenimore Cooper, and Edgar Allan Poe. But among all biographies for boys and young men I know nothing better than the Autobiography of Franklin. This has encouraged and quickened many young Americans to a desire of knowledge and self-culture.

But let no student or teacher believe for one moment that historical biography is the full equivalent of History. Not all the biographies that have ever been written could possibly contain the world's great life. As the poet Tennyson truly says: "The individual withers, but the world is more and more." There must be great men in Church and State, to lead society forward, but there must be unnumbered thousands, yea millions, of good men and true, and of faithful, devoted women, in order to support good leadership and carry humanity forward from generation to generation. It is often the biography of some plain man or self-sacrificing woman that affords the greatest encouragement and incentive to ordinary humanity. But we must remember that no man, no woman is worthy of biographical or historical record, unless in some way he or she has contributed to the welfare of society and the progress of the world. Only those deeds which affect our fellow men in some noteworthy manner are fit for commemoration. What you do as a private individual, what you ate for breakfast, what you do in the seclusion of your own room, is not necessarily historic; but whether Napoleon was able to eat his breakfast on the morning of the Battle of Waterloo, or whether an army has been properly fed, may have the greatest historic significance.

Not man alone, but man in organized society, is the subject of History. Man in his relation to his fellows, man as a military, political, social, intellectual, and religious being may become historic. Dr. Thomas Arnold sometimes defined History as the biography of nations. This is a large and noble conception, although not the largest, and it may be profitably emphasized, like human biography in the study and teaching of History. It is the duty of every school and college to lay great stress upon the history of England and of the United States in addition to General History. We all need to know the lives of our own people as well as the lives of great Englishmen like Pitt and Gladstone, and great Americans like Washington and Lincoln. We should teach and study the histories of those nations which are nearest our mother country--Scotland, France, Germany, and Italy. As Germany is now the great seat of culture and of university life for American students who go abroad, so was Italy for wandering English students in the days of the Renaissance. English literature from that time onward is pervaded with Italian elements, with the influences of "all Etruscan three," Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, and also with the ideas of Machiavelli and the Italian historians. We cannot understand the literature of England or America without going back to its French and Italian sources. It would be wise for college professors of history to devote special attention to the Italian Renaissance or Revival of Learning, without which an understanding of the German Reformation and modern education is an impossibility.