The functions of the township are the same to-day as in 1820. It is a corporate division of the county for the administration of local government, and is concerned with local improvements, the assessment and valuation of property for taxation, the election of public officers, the education of the youth, the care and support of the poor, the maintenance of public health, and the preservation of peace, good order, and public safety. And the principal changes to be noted by way of contrast are found in the officers and their duties, especially in the following particulars: The overseers of the poor and the fence viewers of 1820 have dropped out, while their duties have devolved upon the trustees. Also the appraisers of houses and the lister of taxable property have been combined and assimilated into the assessor of to-day. The justices of the peace and the school officers are purposely left out of consideration, for they are not distinctively township officers. For a number of years, however, the trustees of the township established the school districts within the township and had a general supervision of school matters; but since the school system has become thoroughly organized, school matters are placed in the hands of a board of education.

From the foregoing it is readily seen that the important period of evolution in our township government was in the first quarter of our present century, at a time when great changes were going on not only in the whole country but also and especially in the interior. During these years Ohio had her most rapid development and accession to population, for of the 88 counties in Ohio to-day, 70 were established by the close of the year 1820, and the population of the State had increased so rapidly as to bring her rank among her sister States from the eighteenth in 1800 to the fifth in 1820. Her people were happy and prosperous, and busy in clearing the virgin soil of its wealth of wood, with little time and less occasion for town meetings, so at this early date we find the essential features of our township government to-day. And in briefly recapitulating this paper, we may say that township government in Ohio has passed through three principal stages of development: First, government by appointed officers, till 1802; second, government by the people in "town meeting," so called, till 1820; and third, government by officers elected by the people, since 1820.

XXIII. THE WESTERN POSTS AND THE BRITISH DEBTS.

By Prof. A. C. MCLAUGHLIN.

For some thirteen years after the Revolution England retained possession of a large part of our territory. Her reasons for this retention have never been clearly outlined. Her excuse was that we had broken the treaty on our part. This may serve as justification, but it does not supply us with her purposes in refusing to evacuate our territory, for she might have chosen a more ordinary method of retaliation for our breaches of faith. Moreover, retaliation is expected to come after the fact, while this occupation was at least simultaneous with violations of the treaty on our part, and was a continuous breach of the compact. It is worth while to investigate, therefore, with the hope of discovering what her aims and motives were, and to look a little more closely than historians have yet done into our relations with England on the subject of these frontier posts, which secured to her a control over our western country.

Moreover, it has been constantly charged by our writers that England, from the vantage ground of these western posts, instigated in a secret, dastardly manner the Indians of the region to wage their horrible, barbarous warfare upon our frontier settlements. There has been little disagreement on this point among our own writers. The prima facie evidence is so strong that presumptions of insidious instigation from England are easily and naturally made. The revelations of the Canadian archives allow us to go further than presumption and to settle the question with some definiteness. Like many other seemingly simple questions, this proves a somewhat complicated one when thorough investigation is granted it. The results of search do not enable me to agree either with the American historians who lay this charge at the door of Great Britain or with the more recent writers of Canada who endeavor to

clear the skirts of the home Government and the province of all unworthy motive or infamous action.'

November 30, 1782, a preliminary treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States was agreed upon at Paris. By this treaty the boundaries of the latter country were practically determined. Not, however, till September 3, 1783, was the definitive treaty signed. This was not ratified by the Continental Congress till January 14, 1784, or by Great Britain till April 9 of that year. In this instrument His Britannic Majesty promises "with all convenient speed to withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States and from every post, place, and harbor within the same." An armistice declaring a cessation of hostilities had been signed January 20, 1783. Under this General Carleton seems to have been ordered to vacate New York as early as April of that year. His troops were not entirely withdrawn till November. This seems to have been regarded by our Government as a relinquishment of our territory "with all convenient speed." The western posts, however, were not delivered up until thirteen years after the definitive treaty.

Washington took measures at an early day to secure the frontier forts.3 In July, 1783, he asked General Steuben to go to Canada and request the transfer of the posts. In case Gov

1 How writers have come to disagree on this matter-an international disagreement, so to speak-is illustrated by the two following quotations: "It is worth remembering that for five years, covertly or openly, England did her best to keep an Indian war, with all that it implied, alive upon our borders the borders of a friendly nation with whom she was at peace." (Lodge's George Washington, Vol. II., p. 100. See, also, King's Ohio p. 256.) Goldwin Smith, on the contrary, says: "That the British Government or anybody by its authority was intriguing with the Indians against the Americans is an assertion of which there appears to be no proof." (The United States, p. 140.)

2 Jefferson is my authority for this statement, but there is much corroborating evidence. (Wait's Am. State Papers, Vol. I, p. 280; ib., p. 345.) 3 The posts claimed by Jefferson at a later day were "Michillimakinak, Detroit, Niagara, Oswego, Oswegatchie, Point au Fer, and Dutchmans Point." There were one or two others which were of some importance, though it is not clear that they were officially held and defended. According to a report sent to Grenville in 1790 there were posts of some kind at Presque Isle, the Sandusky and Miami rivers. But I can not think that they were more than trading posts, although troops may have been there occasionally. Of this I have been unable to get complete information. Hildreth includes Presque Isle and Sandusky among the posts that continued to be held by British garrisons. (History of the United States, Vol. III, p. 441.)

ernor Haldimand refused immediate possession Steuben was to obtain a promise that the United States would be informed as soon as possible of intended relinquishment. He was also directed to propose an exchange of artillery and stores. After his negotiations he was authorized to proceed westward as far as Detroit and to visit the various posts for purposes of investigation preliminary to the transfer.' Haldimand refused to consider the question of evacuation on the ground that he had received no orders relative to the matter. The ministry may at this time have had a different idea concerning the western posts from that held with regard to New York, inasmuch as at this time active preparations were being made to leave that city. But, as will be seen later, Haldimand did not desire to give up the posts, and seems to have inspired the British policy with reference to them.

March, 1784, Colonel Fish, of New York, was sent by Governor Clinton to ask that, when instructions were received, notice should be sent of the intended evacuation of the posts within the limits of that State. This, Haldimand says, he "easily evaded." It was privately stated to the commissioner that, the treaty being with Congress, it would be inadmissible to grant the posts to a single State. Haldimand, it seems, also added that it would be improper to evacuate the posts so long as the loyalists were maltreated, in alleged violation of the definitive treaty.3

On behalf of the United States, General Knox, in June, 1784, made formal demand for the detained posts. The letter was sent by Colonel Hull, who was also authorized to make final arrangements for the transfer. Hull executed his commission in July of that year. This demand also was without result. The Government now made no further effort to obtain

Correspondence in Wait's Am. St. Papers, Vol. I, p. 350; Kalb's Life of Steuben, p. 520; Cor. of the Rev., Vol. IV, pp. 41, 42. * Can. Ar., B. 56, p. 214. ducing Fish was in March. 3 Can. Ar., B. 57, p. 615, and B. 56, p. 214. "But however restrained I might be in my public answer to Governor Clinton's letter, I could not hesitate to declare to Lieutenant-Colonel Fish that the posts should not be evacuated until such time as the American States should carry into execution the articles of the treaty in favor of the loyalists."

Governor Clinton's letter to Haldimand intro-
Fish appeared in Quebec May 7.

* Governor Chittenden, of Vermont, also sent a letter asking for posts on Lake Champlain in May, 1784. (Report Can. Ar., 1885, p. 367, B. 57, p. 615.) 5 Michigan Pioneer Collection, vol. 20, pp. 332-338; Wait's Am. St. Papers, Vol. I, p. 351.

possession of these places, except by representation to the English ministry itself, and all such communication was rendered very difficult because of the superciliousness of England and her refusal for years to meet us on terms of equality.

When Haldimand refused to deliver the posts to Steuben, he wrote to Lord North his reasons for such action. Not hav ing received news of the definitive treaty, he did not feel justified in retiring from the position then occupied. Moreover, the Indians were extremely exasperated against the Americans, and it would be very unwise to allow Baron Steuben to pass through the Indian country. In addition to all other reasons, the longer the evacuation was delayed, the more time would be given the traders to remove their merchandise or to convert it into furs, and the greater time allowed the officers under his command to reconcile the Indians to a measure for which they entertained the greatest abhorrence. Not till the spring of 1784, however, did Haldimand receive anything like instructions from the home Government. When these instructions reached him is not plain, but when he gave the auswer to Fish he had not yet received them. On the other hand, when Hull was refused possession Haldimand was no longer acting on his own responsibility and initiative. He said to Hull that he had received no orders to evacuate. This was a negative pregnant. He had practically received orders not to evacuate. It seems as if he might have told Hull frankly why he did not wish to give up the posts, especially if they were held because of our miscomings. His correspondence discloses the situation to us. April 263 he is "anxious" to receive instructions. May 10 he writes Captain Robertson that he has as yet no "information respecting the fate of our posts." +

1(Can. Ar., B. 57, p. 558.) The correspondence clearly shows that Haldimand was very reluctant to give up the posts, that he was anxious to give all sorts of excuses and dilatory pleas to the Americans, and to prompt by sundry suggestions to the ministry the retention of these places at least for the time being.

2 (Can. Ar., Hald. Papers, B. 57, p. 558, dated Quebec, August 20, 1783.) He adds: "I hope soon to have it in my power to inform the Indians more fully and more particularly of His Majesty's gracious instructions for their (the Indians') future welfare and safety, and I may by that means be enabled to render the most essential services to the United States of America by preventing the horrors and dangers of an Indian war."

3 Haldimand to North, April 26, 1784. (Canadian Ar. B. 56, p. 208.) 4 Dated Quebec, May 6, 1784. (Haldimand Papers, Mich. Pio. Col., Vol. XX, p. 226.) By June 14 at least he had received Sydney's letter of approval. (Can. Ar., B. 63, p. 407.)