of attraction. In New York the American Economic Association assembled. In Philadelphia the American Oriental Society, the American Philological Association, the Modern Language Association of America, the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, the American Dialect Society, the Spelling Reform Association, and the Archæological Institute of America held their meetings. In Baltimore, at the Johns Hopkins University, were convened the Geological Society of America, the American Society of Naturalists, the American Morphological Society, and the American Physiological Society. These various reunions, together with those in Washington, clearly show that the time has come for organizing annual American congresses of learned societies in our great cities. Kindred subjects like history, politics, economics, and social science should be kept together in the same congress by means of allied associations. There is an enormous waste of energy in the present management and social entertainment of large conventions of educators and learned bodies. By means of a general committee of arrangements a national congress of all kindred societies could be brought about, and their various members might thus enjoy larger opportunities for acquaintance, converse, and discussion. With conventions held in different cities, members of kindred societies have difficulty in determining which meeting to attend, and are thus sometimes cut off from desirable scientific connections.

Dr. Justin Winsor, of Harvard University, presided at the various sessions of the American Historical Association in Washington. The president of the association, Mr. Henry Adams, was prevented, by absence in South America, from discharging this duty, but a communication from him was read by the secretary. A paper was read by Prof. George B. Adams, of Yale University, on the "Beginning of the idea of imperial federation." In 1869-70 a rapid series of events revealed to the British public that Gladstone's cabinet were apparently on the point of turning the colonies adrift. In this connection the plan of imperial federation was brought into prominence and first discussed as a practical scheme. Mr. W. E. Forster sanctioned it in 1875, and in 1884 the Imperial Federation League was organized. Appropriate tributes were paid to the memory of Herbert Tuttle, John Jay, Robert C. Winthrop, the Hon. Hamilton Fish, President James C. Welling, and Dr. William F. Poole, all members of the association. Mr. Jay and

Dr. Poole were ex-presidents. Bibliographies of the writings of these distinguished members are printed in the Report for 1889.

Rossiter Johnson, of New York City, presented an incisive and critical paper on "Turning points in the American civil war." These were (1) Kentucky's refusal to secede, which deprived the Confederates of the natural line of defense along the Ohio; (2) the battle of Bull Run, which confirmed the Southern people in their belief in their superior prowess and certainty of success; (3) the emancipation proclamation, which placed the struggle on its true issue; (4) the battle of Gettysburg, which ended any hope of carrying the war into the North; (5) the reelection of President Lincoln, which decided that there should be no cessation of hostilities till the Confederacy ceased to exist.

Mrs. Lee C. Harby, of New York, discussed in the morning session at the National Museum "The Tejas: Their habits, government, and superstitions." George Parker Winship, of Harvard University, explained why Coronado went to New Mexico in 1540. Prof. Bernard Moses, of the University of California, presented a scholarly monograph on the Casa de Contratacion of Seville, a body created in 1503 for the control of the economical affairs of Spanish America, which was like the East India House in English administration. Dr. Walter B. Scaife, of Allegheny, Pa., explained some European modifications of the jury system. He showed that the jury system was introduced on the Continent by the French Revolution, but for criminal matters only. The Code Napoleon retained it, but required merely a majority vote for the verdict, and abolished the jury of accusation, which corresponded to our grand jury, and which never since has found a footing either in France or the neighboring countries. Instead, the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge of examination, who generally acts in secret, though the Swiss Canton of Zurich already admits the accused with his counsel to all stages of the process. A movement to secure the same right is on foot in Germany.

Prof. John S. Bassett, of Trinity College, Durham, N. C., presented a new view of the regulators of North Carolina (1766-1771). The uprising was merely a popular tumult, like the uprising of discontented peasants against their lords. It was due to economic and political causes, but it was not an attempted revolution against Great Britain. Prof. Frank W.

Blackmar, of the University of Kansas, sketched the life of Charles Robinson, the first governor of that State. He appears to have been the most important influence in upbuild ing the Commonwealth of Kansas; more prominent, indeed, than John Brown or James H. Lane. Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, of Philadelphia, called attention to a neglected portion of American Revolutionary history, or to the voluminous and unused papers of the Continental Congress. Thus far only the military, diplomatic, and financial affairs of the old Congress have been investigated. Other matters are worthy of historical study in this connection; for example, wethods of Congressional procedure, economic relations, and modes of supplying the army. Of special interest are the reports of committees, as well as the journals and correspondence of the Continental Congress.

In his paper on the origin and development of the labor movement in national and municipal politics in England, Mr. Edward Porritt showed that the outstanding fact is that the labor movement began in Parliament and worked downward into municipal politics. Labor representation in the House of Commons dates back to 1874, while labor representation in town and county councils is a much more recent development of the movement, dating back only to 1889. The parliamentary movement had its beginnings before the working classes were enfranchised. Workingmen living in the towns first exercised the parliamentary vote in 1868; those living in the rural districts, in 1885. In 1867, however, a royal commission was appointed to inquire into the organization and conduct of trade unions, and the appointment of this commission led to the appointment by the trade unionists of a representative national committee, which subsequently developed into the organization now known as the Trade Union Congress. It took this name in 1868, and the following year, at the congress held in Birmingham, labor representation in Parliament first became a definite policy of the trade-unionists. At the general election in 1868 two trade-union leaders unsuccessfully sought seats in the House of Commons, and it was not until the general election in 1874 that trade unionists were elected to Parliament. The first representatives of labor in the House of Commons were those sent there by the miners of Northumberland and Staffordshire. The miners were the first to take advantage of the reform act passed in 1868; and they

also, more generally than any other trade-unionists, took advantage of the reform act of 1884. This activity on the part of the miners is accounted for by the fact that they are in much closer and more frequent contact with the law than any other workmen, and that in many of the constituencies on the great coal fields the miners are the dominating force in the electorate. In these constituencies the parliamentary candidate who secures the unanimous support of the miners is certain of election. Since the Trade Union Congress in 1869 first declared in favor of the representation of labor in the House of Commous, five Parliaments have been elected. In the first there were 2 labor members; in the second there were 3; in the third there were 10; in the fourth there were 12, and in the fifth there are 16. Mr. Porritt next traced the legislation in behalf of labor which has been passed since 1868, and indicated the effect the labor representation and the labor vote have had on the programmes of both political parties. With regard to municipal politics, the labor policy has been formulated since 1889. So far the labor party has principally confined itself in municipal politics to demands for the establishment of municipal workshops; for an eight-hour day for municipal work people; the abolition of the contract system in all public works; remunerative work for the unemployed, and reduction of the salaries of the legal, engineering, and clerical staffs in the municipal service, and to attempts to compel school boards and town councils to usurp many of the functions and duties which Parliament has, since 1834, imposed on the boards of guardians for the relief of the poor.

At the close of the first morning session Prof. William A. Dunning, of Columbia College, gave a rapid review of Ameri can political philosophy. He said the thoughts of the colonial theorists were but the familiar doctrines of the English revolution. Jefferson embodied in the Declaration of Independence the philosophy of all Europe in the eighteenth century, and his leading idea of human equality dates back to imperial Rome.

Tucker, of the Jeffersonian school, in his edition of Blackstone, transferred the principles of the current social contract theory of the State to the explanation of the United States Constitution, and thus became, in a measure, the founder of State sovereignty as a philosophical dogma. Calhoun defended it, however, on different grounds. His "Disquisition on government" is a valuable essay in political philosophy. Francis

Lieber was the first American writer to make a near approach to speculation both broad and systematic, but his civil liberty is rather more in the field of ethics than of politics. Woolsey followed Lieber, but with a theological leaning. The convulsions of our civil war brought out much political literature. Hurd and Draper philosophized on the lines of Austin and Buckle. Brownson wrote cleverly from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church. Mulford reproduced the doctrines of Hegel and Stahl. More satisfactory and more original work has been done by J. A. Jameson and John W. Burgess, combining the historical and the juristic method, and in them is to be found the nearest approach as yet to a distinctly American school.

At the Thursday evening session Professor Emerton, of Harvard University, read a paper on "The papal and imperial electoral colleges." It was a brief review of the problem of the origin of the German institution, especially as influenced by the papacy. The writer thought that the German electorate could best be studied by the analogy of the Roman college of cardinals. Prof. E. G. Bourne, of Adelbert College, presented the paper of his brother, Prof. Henry E. Bourne, of the Cleveland College for Women, on "The first committee of public safety: Its organization, policy, and fall." He ascribed the rise of the committee of public safety in France to the crisis in domestic and foreign politics in April, 1793.

Prof. Charles H. Haskins, of the University of Wisconsin, read the paper of his colleague, Prof. Victor Coffin, on "The Quebec bill and the American Revolution." The writer maintained that the provisions of the Quebec act were not caused by the position of affairs in the other American colonies, but were in accordance with the previous conduct of Canadian affairs, and were advocated to the ministry on grounds apart from colonial quarrels. Prof. Richard Hudson, of the University of Michigan, read a careful study of the German Emperor, considered institutionally.

A group of excellent papers was read at the Friday morning session in the National Museum on "Rhode Island history." Harold D. Hazeltine, a graduate of Brown University, ably discussed the "Appeals from Rhode Island courts to the King in council." The English privy council was the predecessor of our Supreme Court, and consequently the history of appeals made to the English tribunal from Rhode Island is an important