the ruthless character of the forward march of the dominant Anglo Saxon when inferior races obstruct his path, Dr. Phillips supplies it in full measure. No sooner did the Georgians suspect the national government's intention of protecting the Aborigines in the possession of their hunting grounds, guaranteed to them by formal treaty, than they forgot about the great advantages of a strong national power or concluded that they were of minor importance compared with their local need for more land. When the desired ends could not be secured by legitimate diplomacy sharp tactics were resorted to, and if these failed then rough brute force was exerted. The lands they were bound to have, and with President Jackson's bluff and unjustifiable refusal to carry out Marshall's decision of the Supreme Court, they got what they wanted. While State Rights became a conscious consideration with the Georgians immediately upon that court's ruling in Chisolm v. The State of Georgia in 1793, public opinion did not attain to a vigorous growth or become belligerent until the contests for the Indian's land aroused popular greed. Then the rights of States bulked big, and with the progress of the debates over the extension of slavery they loomed larger and larger in the southerner's vision.

No less interesting and instructive are the chapters devoted to the formation and history of the political factions and parties in Georgia prior to 1836. The reader suffers some confusion as the author goes back over ground more or less covered in the first three chapters, and his perspective is not always clearly marked. But a close study has been made of the topography of Georgia politics. The intimate relations between social and industrial conditions in the various sections are shown and the character and color of local political contention and theories and their effect upon the general drift of the political action of the State as a whole are demonstrated; and in many respects these are the most valuable portions of the essay. He traces in great detail the tariff debates and the attitude of the State with respect to nullification. The Georgians furnish interesting illustrations of the frequency with which popular contentions are pushed forward by self

stultification. With loud and persistent assertion they declared that Congress had no power to impose a tariff or to tax them for internal improvements; yet in the same breath they instructed their congressmen to work for a constitutional convention to amend the national compact so as to reduce the growing and branching powers of the federal government under the Constitution, the most damaging sort of admission that they not only dreaded but conceded that the Constitution gave ample jurisdiction to Congress in such matters. Otherwise they could have easily blocked such infractions of State Rights by suits at law in the federal courts themselves. The author, although noting the dissenting opinion of Justice Iredell in the case of Chisolm v. Georgia and its expression of Georgia's sentiments at the time does not recognize, at least he omits to point out, that that judge outlined the course of judicial construction later followed by Marshall in his celebrated expositions, and furthermore suggested the interpretation by which the federal courts in the cases arising out of the Civil War justified the conduct of the Union authorities in dealing with the rebellious citizens of the seceding States, when he declared that the powers of the United States "require no aid from any State authority, etc."

The chapters on slavery and secession are of absorbing interest, but space does not permit their review. The author, a southerner by birth and early training and from natural sympathy prejudiced as regards the controversies that aroused such bitter animosities, writes with marked reserve and judicial fairness.

A number of instructive maps in colors accompany and illuminate the text, exhibiting graphically the political complexion of the various sections. It is much to be wished that the author continue his investigations into the periods of the war and reconstruction and show us the courses of opinion under the pressure of war and in the readjustments during reconstruction and the carpet-bag regime.

Following Dr. Phillips' essay in Volume II of the Report of the Historical Association is the Report of the Public Archives Commis

sion, signed by William MacDonald, John Martin Vincent and Howard W. Caldwell.

This report of the Public Archives Commission contains (1) an elaborate report of the records of the city and county of Philadelphia by Drs. H. V. Ames of the University of Pennsylvania, and A. E. McKinley of Temple College, which is a continuation of the report on the Archives of Pennsylvania made last year to the Commission; (2) a digest of the laws of North Carolina respecting the preparation, care, and publication of public records by Prof. Jno. S. Bassett of Trinity College; and (3) a preliminary report on the Archives of Texas by Mr. E. C. Barker of the University of Texas.

The report on Philadelphia is extensive, elaborate, and very detailed giving the results of five months of painstaking work in ransacking public buildings and libraries. The exhibits are very uneven, some being painfully meager and ill considered by the authorities in charge and others bearing evidence that officials are beginning to appreciate the inestimable importance of providing for the security and preservation of official documents. This report is to be classed with the one made last year by Professor Osgood of Columbia University on the Records of New York. It covers the colonial and revolutionary periods, the period between 1789-1854, the records of the local governments from 1682 to 1854, and those of the city from 1854 to 1901, and of the county from 1682 to 1901. So far as discovered the files are all listed, and the various efforts towards their preservation indicated.

Some one in authority here in Iowa, the Historical Society, or the Library Commission, or the State librarians at Des Moines should make it their work to send some such circular to all of our public officials in our city and county offices as Professor Osgood prepared and sent out in the State of New York. There are scores of our city and county collections which are now indiscriminate heaps of grimy, mutilated records in cellars, closets and attics, and boxes. The writer saw one such in one of Iowa's largest cities not long since. There is need of some vigorous evangelistic work of this kind in

our State because invaluable records are being recklessly destroyed or lost or mutilated by ill usage beyond redemption.

DES MOINES, IOWA

F. I. HERRIOTT

Proceedings of the Pioneer Law Makers Association of Iowa. Re

union 1902, held at Des Moines, February 12th and 13th, 1902. Eighth Biennial Session. Des Moines: Bernard Murphy, State Printer. 1902. Pp. 131.

The Pioneer Law Makers Association of Iowa was organized in 1888 largely through the personal exertions of the late George G. Wright, who, during his whole life, retained a warm affection for the pioneer, always recalling his finer characteristics and forgetting his failings. In addition to the social features of the reunion, Mr. Wright desired to keep in memory the names and the personnel of the men who formed the early laws of the State. To separate the Association as far as possible from political and personal prejudices, those who were eligible to membership were designated by the following section: "Its members shall consist of all former State officers, including members and officers of Territorial and State legislatures, Senators and Representatives in Congress, members of the Cabinet from Iowa, United States Supreme, Circuit, and District Judges, members and officers of constitutional conventions and State boards of education, Judges and District Attorneys who served twenty-five years prior to each biennial reunion."

Some

The reunion of 1902 was attended by about forty persons. of the reminiscences were quite touching. There was an interesting discussion as to the two names from the State which should be placed on the roll of honor in the Hall of Fame at the Centennial Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis.

Prominent among the names brought forward were the early pioneers, Senators Dodge and Jones, and Charles Mason, Chief Justice of the Territory and of the State. The trend of opinion seemed to settle upon the statesmen who were prominent during the Civil War. Among these Governor James W. Grimes was without dissent the first choice of the Association.

Mr. Grimes was unquestionably the ablest man of his day in the State. He outlined the policy of the Constitutional Convention of 1857 and moulded State legislation while he was Governor and for some sessions before. To his cool judgment and unbounded influence our State, cities, and counties owe the freedom from large corporate indebtedness which almost overwhelmed Illinois, Missouri, and other States during the period of early railroad construction. The constitutional provisions limiting corporate and State debt are today a tribute to the wisdom and foresight exercised by him at a time when public sentiment ran wild in the other direction.

As a member of the United States Senate from 1858 to 1868, Mr. Grimes had few equals and no superiors in devising means to meet the exigencies of those trying times. I have thought that his position on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was the greatest act of his life.

William F. Coolbaugh, a radical Democrat who had no sympathy with his anti-slavery views, was, nevertheless, a warm personal friend of Mr. Grimes. When I first knew them they roomed together at the Clinton House in Iowa City. In general matters of State policy they were in accord. Mr. Coolbaugh afterwards told me that when it became apparent that Senator Grimes would vote in favor of acquitting President Johnson he went to Washington for the special purpose of advising him against such a course. He said to Mr. Grimes:-You are the idol of your party in Iowa. The party is radical in the extreme and wrought almost to frenzy by the murder of Lincoln and the apostacy of Johnson. You are the most sensitive man I ever knew. By the course you propose you will bring upon yourself the vengeance of your party, and your State will disown you. You will not outlive this action a year. The reply of Senator Grimes was:-I have considered all this. But my position is right,

and if I die tomorrow I shall vote as my convictions dictate. I have no respect for President Johnson personally and less for his policies. But I believe each department of the government is independent; and so long as his official acts are not in violation of the Constitution