the right to navigate it, without paying tribute to a foreign power; Kentucky, Tennessee, and the new settlements west of the Alleghanies were the primary object. The corn fields of Kansas, wheat fields of Idaho, mines of Colorado, and pastures of Montana were fairly thrust upon us, and no one except Napoleon appears to have realized the greatness of the event. But of immediate political results, one is evident the dread felt in New England of growth to the West and Southwest, and consequent loss of relative power. In .18o3~'4, certain Federalist leaders began to talk of a Northern Confederation, and in 1814 the Hartford Convention set forth the evils which, in its opinion, had resulted from the Louisiana Purchase. Tracing the discussion for ourselves in the pages of the Federalist, the "Olive Branch," (that most vituperative of political pamphlets), the annals of Congress, and the writings of Jefferson, Monroe, and other leaders of the time, we are forced to recognize the enlargement of the American policy which the Louisiana Purchase compelled. It led by easy steps to the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823; to the Texan revolt of 1836; and to the conquest of California, in 1847. It modified, over a large territory, the common law of England by the Latin law of Spain and France; it added new influences to the national life such as the Creoles of New Orleans, the Spaniards of Santa Fe, arid the old French aristocracy of St. Louis. An event whose results have not been unmixed with evil, but a great event, nevertheless, and one that is full of dramatic historical interest.
The most important work that the American Historical Association has yet issued, is Mr. Knight's exhaustive study of Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory.[1] It is, in fact, an honor to the Political Science School of Michigan University, of which Mr. Knight is a graduate, and it is based upon original research among State papers. It is one of those pieces of work that show at a glance order, dignity, and accuracy in details. It is in two parts, "Federal Legislation," and "State Legislation and Management of the Grants." The entire story is a sad one, disheartening to the friends of education. Land grants that under honest and capable management would have served as a support to the public schools and colleges, have been alienated from their proper purpose, and wasted in a thousand ways. Hasty sales, special legislation, theft, litigation, forgeries of land scrip all the methods of swindling the State of its school lands, familiar somewhat farther west than Illinois are vividly described in Mr. Knight's treatise. He sums up by blaming the "Legislature and the people. The six causes of waste have been (i) Undue haste in selling lands. (2) Careless legislation and lack of restrictions on the legislature." (3) Failure to guard and invest moneys received from land sales. (4) The general indifference of the people to the whole subject. (5) Special legislation. (6) The attempt to divert educational funds to other State objects. It would be well if some Californian would take up the subject of Land Grants for Education on the Pacific Coast. It is a fruitful subject, and one worthy of investigation. We can heartily recommend Mr. Knight's admirable monograph as a model of method.
The fifth of the Historical Association publications is a strong civil service reform document.[2] The weight of its argument lies in its unprejudiced analysis of the cause which corrupted the appointing power, and produced its culminating evils of 1861 and 1877. From the days of the first debate on the appointing power, in the Philadelphia Convention, to the Conkling-Blaine contest, and the Pendleton bill of January 16, 1883, the story is told with admirable skill and reserve. Miss Salmon groups the administrations to 1829 as belonging to the "Merit Period," those from 1829 to 1861 as belonging to the "Spoils Period," and the latest as pf
- ↑ History and Management of Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin). By George W. Knight, Ph. D. No. 3, American Historical Association Papers.
- ↑ History of the Appointing Powers of the President. By Lucy M. Salmon. No. 5, American Historical Association Papers.
