This page contains affiliate links. As Amazon Associates we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • 1801
Buy it on Amazon FREE Audible 30 days

as far as her citizens are concerned, the extent of the obligation which she has _contracted_; and if, in her opinion, the act exercising the power in dispute be unconstitutional, to declare it null and void, which declaration would be obligatory on her citizens.” The sum and substance of this was, as Von Holst has pointed out,[1] to give to one-fourth of the States the power if they saw fit to deprive the Federal Government of every power entrusted to it, that is, to alter the constitution at will.

[Footnote 1: _Constitutional History of the United States_, Vol. I, p. 474, note.]

The right of secession follows as a logical outcome of the theory of nullification rigidly carried out. Federal laws are general in their nature, and if binding anywhere, must be binding everywhere. If then, a minority of States insist on their right of nullification, the federal government will be obliged either to admit that every act of Congress is without any force in a State until it has obtained the tacit approval of the people of that State, or else it will be driven to the necessity of obtaining the enforcement of the law by arms. Such employment of force would of course be but the prelude to secession. Indeed, South Carolina, in her Ordinance of Nullification, declared that she would secede, if the United States did not repeal the obnoxious laws, or if she should attempt to enforce the collections of the tariff duties provided for by the acts in dispute. According to the Unionist view, it is held that in no case has the individual State the right to resist the operation of a federal law, much less does it possess the actual power to pass a law affecting its relation to, or continuance in, the Union. This view is supported by an interpretation of the constitution that denies to that instrument the character of a compact between the States and the National Government. The constitutional theory of this school is that the National Government was formed _by the people_ as a whole, and not by the States. That the States accepted this government, but were in no sense parties to an agreement between them and the Nation. According to this view, the Union began with the first acts of resistance taken in common by the colonies, and is thus, in a sense, older than the state governments, which were not formed until after the Declaration of Independence. Also, that when the States gave in 1788 their consent to the constitution, their consent was irrevocable. Two quotations from decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States will make clear the arguments and theory of the Unionists.

Said Chief Justice Marshall:[1] “The convention which promulgated the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures, but the instrument when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligations or pretentious to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might ‘be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof, under recommendation of its legislature for their assent and ratification.’ This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the conventions, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only way in which they can act safely, effectually, and wisely on such a subject, by assenting in convention. It is true they assembled in their several States, an where could they have assembled? From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling the convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their decision was final. It required not the affirmance of, and could not be negatived by, the state governments. The constitution when adopted was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties. The government of the Union then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.”

[Footnote 1: _McCulloch_ v. _Md._, 4 Dall., 316.]

Said Chief Justice Chase:[1] “The union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the articles of Confederation. By these the union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when the articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be more indissoluble if a perpetual union made more perfect, is not? But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States…. Without the States in Union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the constitution, as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government. The constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”

[Footnote 1: _Texas_ v. _White_, 7 Wall., 750.]

A civil war of four years’ duration has decided the Unionist theory of our government to be the one under which the Nation is to be governed. Whether or not, in point of fact, the Nation was older than the States, and the constitution not a compact, but an indissoluble Union, will always remain a question to be discussed. The dispute turns upon a point that does not admit of final determination. We can only theorize. To maintain the view that the Union is older than the States it is necessary to show that the Continental Congress was of such a character, and its powers of such a nature, that a true national government may be said to have existed before July 4, 1776, and therefore, that the Declaration of Independence and the consequent transformation of the colonies into States were not the result of the individual action of separate colonies, but of the whole people united in a nation. And, following from this, that the States were never out of the union, but that the individual colonies became States, only as belonging to the United States. Consequently that the theory of a ‘compact’ between the States and the United States is untenable, for at the time the United States was born, the States did not exist.[1]

[Footnote 1: As Lincoln expressed it in his message of July 4, 1861: “The States have their _status_ in the Union, and they have no other legal status…. The Union is older than any of the States, and in fact, it created them as States.”]

To maintain the “Compact Theory” it is necessary to show that the “Continental Congress” had no properly delegated national powers, and to it the character of a national government could not fitly be applied, and that the colonies when they separated from England remained independent of each other, because as colonies they had been independent. Therefore, that the initial clause of the Preamble to the Constitution “We the people of the United States” referred not to all the people of the United States in their collective capacity, but to the people of the several States.

In fine, admitting, as all do, the Continental Congress to have been a revolutionary body, exercising undelegated powers, the question is, Was it, or was it not, a _de jure_, as well as _de facto_ national government, and this is a question that cannot be answered absolutely.

These opposing views of the character of our constitution have been stated not with the idea of proving either of them to be the correct one, but solely to indicate the lines along which political parties have fought their battles. Thus, it is hoped, the student will be prepared for an intelligent consideration of the various political parties that have existed in the course of his country’s history.

To complete the statement of the underlying causes and fundamental principles that have directed the course of our national politics, it is necessary to give at least some short account of the natural causes that have operated irresistibly to divide the North and the South in their political thoughts and actions.

Why is it that slavery flourished in the South, but languished and was gradually abolished in the North? Why is it that the stronghold of the States’ Rights doctrine of nullification and of secession was in the South, and the citadel of the Unionists in the North? Why is it that to-day the debate between high and low customs duties, is, to a very considerable extent, a discussion between the New England and Middle States and the Southern States?

To all these questions a very satisfactory answer can be found in the different physical characteristics of the North and South. The nature of the soil and climate, as well as the character of the settlers, predetermined for the Southern colonies an agricultural character, and for the colonies of the North a commercial and industrial character; and, already by the end of the eighteenth century we find in them a marked difference of political and social life.

From the very start, the South, favored by a mild climate, rich soil, and broad, low-lying valleys, developed an agricultural life. Slavery was introduced at an early date, and flourished, the warm climate being congenial to the negro, and the rude manual labor of the field suited to his meagre capabilities. The result of these influences was to develop in the South a system of large ill-worked manors or estates. The predominance of slave labor, discouraged the immigration of free labor, and the South remained comparatively thinly settled. The moral effect of slavery upon the white population was bad. Habits of thriftlessness and laziness were engendered among the free population, and their social relations corrupted.

In the North, an indented coast with many good harbors, a rugged soil, and a wintry climate, encouraged the development of a commercial and manufacturing life. Slave labor here proved itself scarcely profitable, neither the climate nor the nature of the work required, being suited to the frames and abilities of the African. As compared with the South, the North soon became thickly settled, and largely as a result of this, adopted the small area of the town or township as its most important unit of local government, instead of the larger area, the county, used in the South. This essential difference in the system of local government in the North, from that of the South, has remained unchanged to this day, and has exercised great influence upon the political habits of the peoples of these two sections.

At the time of the adoption of the constitution, these differences between the northern and southern colonies were not so great as they were soon to become. As contrasted with the North, the agricultural character of the South was already marked, but the designation of these two sections as “free” and “slave” states had not yet come into use. It was the remarkable development of the cultivation of cotton consequent upon the invention of Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793, that gave the tremendous impetus to the increase of slavery in the South. While prior to the introduction of this machine, scarcely a single pound of cotton could be separated from the seed by a man in a day, Whitney’s gin made it possible to prepare for market three hundred and fifty pounds per day. The nature of the cotton plant rendered it peculiarly fitted to the climate and soil of the South, and the ease with which it could be cultivated and prepared for market, made the application of slave labor extremely profitable. In 1789 many of the southern states exhibited evidences of a desire and intention to ultimately abolish slavery, but from this time we hear nothing more of this. After 1800 the number of slaves increased rapidly. The census of 1790 showed in the southern colonies 650,000, while that of 1820 showed the number to be over 1,580,000. From 1800 to 1865 the political life of the South is largely explainable by the interest of its people in, and devotion to, the institution of slavery.

The promptness with which, irrespective of party affiliations, the people of the North assumed the anti-slavery attitude and those of the South placed themselves under the pro-slavery banner, at the time of the Missouri contest in 1820, shows the extent to which these two sections of the United States were already divided upon this great question. The South, retarded in its growth by the employment of slave labor, as compared with the North already exhibited an example of arrested development, and her politicians saw that if the balance of power between the slave-holding and the non-slave-holding States was to be maintained, a wider field for the extension of their favorite institution would have to be provided. It is in the light of this motive that the desire of the South for the annexation of Cuba and of Texas, even at the expense of a war with Mexico, is to be interpreted. The compromise of 1820 satisfied the demands of the slavocracy for a time, but only for a time. In 1850 the South again demanded, and obtained concessions. It required a civil war to demonstrate to us the futility of endeavoring to avert by compromise the conflict that was irrepressible between the North and South so long as slavery existed in the one, and was reprobated in the other.

The different attitudes assumed at the present day by the North and South in regard to the Tariff question, is explainable by the difference in the industrial life of these two sections. The North is essentially a manufacturing centre, and, as such, demands high import duties as a protection to her manufacturers and merchants. The South is, as a whole, agricultural, and favors low duties with the idea of thus extending foreign trade, and affording a larger market for the sale of her raw products. A striking proof of the influence of the industrial life of a section in determining its attitude towards the tariff, is seen in the change of front of Massachusetts after 1824 from free-trade to protection, this change being wholly due to the predominating influence acquired by her manufactures over her commerce and agriculture.



For the assistance of those who may desire a fuller acquaintance with the administrative methods of our Federal and State Governments than is to be obtained from this book, these bibliographical notes are appended. Not only the authorities actually consulted in the preparation of this monograph are given, but mention is also made of the most reliable and accessible sources of information upon the more important topics germane to the study of Government and Administration. In arrangement, the notes follow the order of topics used in the text.

General Works upon United States Government.

Worthy of first mention is the admirable work of James Bryce, _The American Commonwealth_, 2 vols., 1888. To the student of American institutions and administration these two volumes are indispensable. In them is contained the best and latest scientific exposition of our political institutions as they exist to-day. The only criticism that can be made regarding the work is that the executive departments have not received sufficient attention as regards the details of their administration, nor the practical and scientific value of the work performed by their numerous bureaus. Interesting from an historical point of view is De Tocqueville’s _Democracy in America_, now fifty years old. Lalor’s _Encyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy and American History_ is by far the best work for reference. The principal articles in the field of political science are contributed by Dr. J.C. Bluntschli, those upon United States History by the late Prof. Alexander Johnston, and those upon Federal Administration by A.R. Spofford, Librarian of Congress.

Bannatyne’s _Hand-book of Republican Institutions in the United States_ is an authoritative work based upon federal and state laws, and other authoritative sources of information. It is entirely descriptive and very complete. Other general works are Mulford’s _The Nation: the Foundation of Civil Order and Political Life in the United States_; Laboulaye’s _Histoire Politique des Etats-Unis,_ 3 vols.; and Lamphere’s _The United States Government: Its Organization and Practical Workings_, this last being chiefly valuable for its statistical and tabulated information.

Among foreign works that consider the theory and practice of the United States Government, are Bagehot’s _English Constitution_; Sir Henry Maine’s chapter on the _Constitution of the United States_ in his _Popular Government_; E.A. Freeman’s article _Presidential Government_ contained in his _Historical Essays_ (1871); Lord Brougham’s chapter on the _Government of the United States_ in his _Political Philosophy_, Vol. 3; and E. Boutmy’s _Etudes de droit Constitutionel._ For current political information McPherson’s _Hand-book of Politics_, issued every two years since 1870, is valuable. Besides statistical information regarding government revenues and expenditures, public debts, votes, population, names of congressmen, &c.; these hand-books contain Presidential and Gubernatorial messages, transcripts from the _Congressional Record_ relating to leading matters discussed in Congress; and decisions of the Supreme Court that are of general importance. _The Statesman’s Year-Book_, published annually by Macmillan & Co., is valuable for reference in matters concerning both foreign and American governments. Bibliographical references are also given to each existing government.

John Fiske’s recent volume on _Civil Government in the United States_, stands in merit far above other manuals bearing this name, most of which are simply running commentaries on the constitution. An excellent feature of Mr. Fiske’s book is the addition of bibliographical notes at the ends of the chapters.

The following are manuals that may be recommended as of comparative merit: Macy, _Our Government: How it Grew, What it Does, and How it Does it_; Cocker’s _Civil Government_; Thorpe’s _Government of the People of the United States_; Martin’s _Civil Government_, and Ford’s _American Citizens’ Manual_.

The most complete collection of bibliographical references to the Constitution of the United States is that prepared by W.E. Foster, and published as _Economic Tract_ No. xxix, by the “Society for Political Education,” New York.


Dr. J.C. Bluntschli’s _Lehre vom Modernen Stat_, in three volumes, gives the finest treatment of the various forms and general principles of governments. A portion of Dr. Bluntschli’s work has been translated into English and published under the title _The Theory of the State_. There is also a French translation of this work. Other authorities under this head are: Bluntschli’s _Staatswoerterbuch_; Woolsey’s _Political Science, or the State Theoretically and Practically Considered_; and Montesquieu’s _De l’Esprit des Lois_. Interesting from an historical point of view, are the theories contained in the works of political philosophers in the past. See Plato’s _Republic_; Aristotle’s _Politics_, Cicero’s _De Republica_; Thomas Aquinas’ _Of the Government of Principles;_ Dante’s _De Monarchia_; Machiavelli’s _Prince_; Jean Bodin’s _Of the Commonwealth_; Hobbes’ _Leviathan_; Filmer’s _Patriarcha_; Hooker’s _Ecclesiastical Polity_; Locke’s _Civil Government_; J.J. Rousseau’s _Social Contract_; Bentham’s _Fragment on Government_; J.S. Mills’ _Representative Government_.

Pollock’s _History of the Science of Politics_, published in the “Humboldt Library,” contains an admirable summary of the views of these political philosophers.

The works of several of these authors (Hobbes, Hooker, Locke, Filmer, Machiavelli) are contained in “Morley’s Universal Library,” published by Routledge at one shilling per volume.

For theories regarding the origin and development of government, see Maine’s _Ancient Law, Early History of Institutions_, and _Early Law and Custom_; Spencer’s _Principles of Sociology_, Vol. I; Morgan’s _Ancient Society_; McLennan’s _Studies in Ancient History_, and _The Patriarchal Theory_; and Bagehot’s _Physics and Politics_, published in the Humbolt Library. The contract theory of government is presented in various forms in the works of Hobbes, Hooker, Locke and Rousseau.

Functions of Government.

The proper limits of state action are discussed in Mill’s _Essay on Liberty_; Huxley’s _Administrative Nihilism_ (Humboldt Lib.); Spencer’s _Social Statics, Man versus the State, The Coming Slavery_, and _The Sins of Legislators_ (Humboldt Lib.); Stephen’s _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_; Humboldt’s _Sphere and Duties of Government_; and H.C. Adams’ _State in Relation to Industrial Action_, published by the American Economic Association. Wilson’s _The State_ contains a valuable chapter upon the functions of government. For a description of existing forms of government, Prof. Woodrow Wilson’s _The State_ is very valuable. See also _Statesmen’s Year Books_.

Colonial Governments.

Volumes III, IV, and V of Winsor’s _Narrative and Critical History of America_, 8 vols., contain excellent monographs upon the founding, history and nature of government of the various colonies. Doyle’s two volumes, entitled _The English Colonies in America_, present an exhaustive study of the American colonies from an European point of view. A handy digest of this work is contained in his small _History of the United States_, published as one of the volumes in “Freeman’s Historical Course for Schools.” Lodge’s _Short History of the English Colonies in America_ is chiefly devoted to colonial social life. In the preparation of the chapter upon Colonial Governments, we have obtained the most assistance from the first volume of Story’s _Commentaries upon the Constitution_. Pages 15 to 50 of Hannis Taylor’s _Origin and Growth of the English Constitution_ are important. Fiske’s _Beginnings of New England_ is an extremely interesting description of the early history of a single section. Steps Toward Union and Independence.

See especially Story’s _Commentaries_; Frothingham’s _Rise of the Republic of the United States_; Scott’s _Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies in America_; Fiske’s _Critical Period of American History_; and A.B. Hart’s _Formation of the Union_, 1763-1829, to appear in the series, “Epochs of American History.” For the Albany plan of union see Franklin’s _Life and Letters_, Vol. 4. For an account of the causes leading to revolution written from an essentially English standpoint, see Lecky’s _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, Vol. IV.

Articles of Confederation.

Best upon this subject are: Curtis’ _History of the Constitution_; Marshall’s _Life of Washington_; Bancroft’s _History of the United States_; and Winsor’s _Narrative and Critical History of America_, Vol. VII, article _The Confederation_ by the Editor. See also _Secret Journals of Congress_, and authorities cited above.

Constitutional Convention and the Adoption of the Constitution.

See authorities cited above, and J.A. Jameson’s _Treatise on Constitutional Conventions_. The official sources of information are: the meagre _Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of the Convention_; and Elliot’s _Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution_, * * * * _together with the Journal of the Federal Convention_, the last volume of which contains Madison’s notes of _Debates in the Federal Convention_, frequently called _The Madison Papers_.

The Constitution.

The number of valuable works concerned more or less directly with a study of the Constitution is very great. Only a very few can be mentioned. A very complete list of references to the Constitution, is that by W.E. Foster, already referred to. The leading works upon Constitutional Law are Cooley’s _General Principles of Constitutional Law_, and _Constitutional Limitations_; Von Holst’s, Hare’s and Pomeroy’s treatises on Constitutional Law. Story’s _Commentaries on the Constitution_ are invaluable. The character and value of _The Federalist_ have been noticed in the text (p. 25). On Constitutional Amendments, see Johnston’s article on _Amendments_ in Lalor’s _Encyclopaedia_. Concerning Constitutional developments, due to judicial construction, see Willoughby’s _Supreme Court of the United States: its History and Influence in our Constitutional System_, published in the Johns Hopkins Studies, Extra Vol. VII; and _The Constitutional History of the United States as Seen in the Development of American Law_, by Judge Cooley and others, edited by H.W. Rogers. _The Unwritten Constitution of the United States,_ is the title of a very recent book by C.G. Tiedeman.

For constitutional development due to war experiences, see Dunning’s _United States in Civil War and in Reconstruction_. W.E. Foster has in press a pamphlet of references on _The United States Constitution in Civil War_.

On Federal Government, see Jellinek’s _Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen_; and Hart’s _Introduction to the Study of Federal Government_, Harvard Historical Monographs, No. 2. Besides giving an outline of the political history of the successive federations in the world’s history, with an account of the literature upon each, Mr. Hart’s monograph contains a very excellent bibliographical note on Federal Government in general, and the United States Constitution in particular.

The laws of the United States are known as _United States Statutes at Large_. In 1878 was published a large volume containing all Federal laws in force in 1874. In 1881 was published a Supplement (known as _Richardson’s Supplement_) containing congressional legislation during the years 1874–1881.

Congressional Government.

The official reports of the debates of Congress have been published under the following titles: _Annals of Congress_ (1789–1823), _Congressional Debates_ (1824-1837), _Congressional Globe_ (1833-1873), _Congressional Record_ (1873 to the present time). Benton’s _Abridgment of Debates_ in 16 volumes covers the period 1789 to 1850.

McPherson’s _Handbook of Politics_, already cited, contains accounts of the more important debates in Congress. Printed copies of bills and reports of committees can be obtained upon application. For the best descriptions of the practical working of Congress, see Bryce’s _American Commonwealth_, and Woodrow Wilson’s _Congressional Government_. In both of these works our committee method of congressional legislation is compared with the English method of Parliamentary legislation under the leadership of a responsible ministry. The conclusions obtained from this comparison by the latter author, are especially unfavorable to the United States. Other references to works comparing English and American methods of legislation, are Snow’s _Defence of Congressional Government_, published in the papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. IV; A.L. Lowell’s _Essays on Government_; Bagehot’s _English Constitution_; Bourinot’s article, _Canada and the United States, Scottish Review_, July, 1890, and Annals of the American Academy of Social Science, No. I; and an article by Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, _Shall We Americanize Our Institutions?_ Nineteenth Century, December, 1890. _The Congressional Directory_, published annually, contains much handy information regarding the constitution and officers of Congress, and of the various federal departments at Washington. For an account of the work done during the last session (1889-90), see _North American Review_, November, 1890. Regarding the recent controversy on the power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to count as present members in the hall, but not answering to the roll-call, see the _North American Review_ for October, 1889; the Nos. for March, May, July, August and October, 1890, also contain interesting articles on the same subject.

Executive Departments.

Of especial and authoritative value is the report of a select committee of the Senate to _Enquire into and Examine the Methods of Business and Work in the Executive Departments_, in 3 vols., known as Cockrell’s Report, or Senate Report 507, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., and also a supplementary report in one volume, dated March 28, 1889. For other official sources of information, see the annual reports of the various departments, and of the individual bureaus. See also special reports mentioned in the text. On diplomatic relations, see the annual report of the Secretary of State _On Foreign Relations_, and _Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers_ (1776-1887), published by the same department. The _Consular Reports_, issued from time to time by the State Department, are of value as furnishing economic information regarding foreign countries. The reports of the Secretary of the Treasury are of extreme statistical and financial value. For handy use the _Statistical Abstract_ is issued annually by the Treasury Department. The reports published by the Department of State, of the _International Conferences of 1878_, and of _1881_, and that of Edward Atkinson on _The Present Status of Bimetalism in Europe_ (1887), are of especial value upon monetary topics. In 1886 the Treasury Department issued a volume of _Laws Relating to Loans, and the Currency, Coinage and Banking_. Besides his annual report the Director of the Mint publishes annually a report on the _Production of Gold and Silver in the United States_. For an account of the Sub-Treasury system, see Bolle’s _Financial History of the United States_. Concerning the evils of this system, see an article by Prof. J.L. Laughlin in the _North American Review_, Vol. 137, p. 552.

Regarding the Silver Question and other important public questions coming within the province of the Treasury Department, information can be derived from recent periodicals. Poole’s _Index to Periodical Literature_ should also be consulted. An interesting account of the Pension Office is contained in the _Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1890. Regarding the Interstate Commerce Commission, see the book by Don Passes in Putnam’s “Questions of the Day” series. See also Political Science Quarterly, Vol. II, pp. 223 and 369.

The Eleventh Census is now being compiled, and Bulletins are issued from time to time by the superintendent. Postmaster-General Wanamaker has recently issued a pamphlet in support of a _Limited Post and Telegraph_.

Concerning the constitutional powers possessed by executive officers, see A. Conkling’s _Powers of the Executive Departments_; de Chambrun’s _The Executive Power,_ and chapter VII of Willoughby’s _Supreme Court of the United States_. The _Official Register of the United States_, issued annually in two large volumes, contains the names and positions of all persons in federal employment. The second volume is devoted exclusively to the Postal Service. Very many of the government reports mentioned in this note will be sent to any address upon application.

_A descriptive catalogue of all government publications_ arranged in chronological order, from 1774 to 1881, was prepared by B.P. Poore and published by the government.

Federal Judiciary.

Among the treatises upon the practical working of the Federal Judiciary are: B.R. Curtis’ _Federal Courts_; Bryce’s _American Commonwealth_; and Willoughby’s _Supreme Court of the United States_, already referred to. For an excellent description of the relations between the Federal and State courts, see Chamberlain’s lecture published in _The Constitutional History of the United States as seen in the Development of its Law_. The reports of decisions of cases tried in the Supreme Court are contained in one hundred and thirty-three volumes. Until 1875, these volumes were known by the names of the reporters, viz.: Dallas, Cranch, Wheaton, Peters, Howard, Black, and Wallace. Since 1875 they have been designated simply as _United States Reports_.

Ordinance of 1787.

For text and comments see _Old South Leaflet_ No 13 (Heath & Co., price five cents). For _The United States Constitution and the Ordinance of_ 1787 _in Relation to Education_, see Magazine of American History, September, 1888. See also Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. III; pamphlets by Dr. Poole and F.D. Stone, and Sato’s _History of the Land Question in the United States_, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV.


The reports of the Governors of the various territories to the Secretary of the Interior furnish an official source of information. Regarding the government of, and conditions of admission of territories as States, see especially Bannatyne’s _Republican Institutions in the United States_.

State Governments.

For the text of State constitutions see B.P. Poore’s _Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Lows of the United States_, in two vols. (1877), published by the government. For further information regarding State constitutions consult Davis’ _American Constitutions_, in the Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series III; Jameson’s _Introduction to the Constitutional and Political History of the States_, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV; and Hitchcock’s _American State Constitutions_ (Putnam’s “Questions of the Day” series). See also of course Bryce’s _American Commonwealth_. For _Recent Tendencies in State Activities_, see paper by W.F. Willoughby, to be published in the “Papers of the American Historical Association,” Vol. V., and articles by Dr. Albert Shaw, entitled _American State Legislatures_, in Contemporary Review, October, 1889, and _The American State and the American Man_, in the same review for May, 1887. The _Forum_ for November, 1890, contains an interesting description of the _Six New States_, by Senator Cullom. For histories of the individual States, see the series of “American Commonwealths,” edited by H.E. Scudder, and published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Those for Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Kansas, California, Maryland, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Colorado, Oregon, and Virginia, have already appeared.

Local Government.

Among authorities on Local Government are various monographs upon this subject in the several States, contributed to the _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_. See also Bryce and Bannatyne.

City Government.

See J.H.U. _Studies_, Vol. IV, Nos. 4, 10; Vol. V, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4; Vol. VII, Nos. 1, 3, 4. Also supplementary volume, _Philadelphia, 1681-1887: a History of Municipal Development_, by Allinson and Penrose. Simon Sterne has an able article on “Cities” in Lalor’s _Encyclopaedia_. See also chapters in Bryce’s great work, and articles in the Political Science Quarterly for June, 1887, and June, 1889; Forum, Vol. II, pp. 260, 539; and Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1890.

The report of the New York Commission on “_A Plan for a New Government of New York_,” 1876, is valuable, as are also several of ex-Mayor Hewitt’s messages. Prof. Gniest has a suggestive article on Berlin, the best governed city in the world, in the _Contemporary Review_, Vol. 46. Shaw’s article on Glasgow in the Century, March, 1890, is likewise instructive. Spofford’s _City of Washington and Growth of United States Cities_ is interesting. Ely’s _Taxation in American States and Cities_ contains many excellent suggestions for improvements in our methods of municipal administration. See also Ely’s _Problems of To-day_. Putnam is publishing a series entitled _Great Cities of the Republic_. The Stories of New York, Boston and Washington have thus far appeared.

Government Revenue and Expenditure.

Federal and State finance reports furnish official information. Seligman’s _Finances of American States and Cities_, published by the American Statistical Association, 1890, is valuable, and furnishes excellent statistical and tabulated information. Ely’s _Taxation in American States and Cities_ contains much information. Spofford’s article on _The Budget_ in Lalor’s _Encyclopaedia_ is extremely instructive. H.C. Adams’ _Public Debts_ is one of the ablest financial works in the English language. The proper administration of Federal and State finances is discussed, and the subject of national and local debts considered. Bolle’s _Financial History of the United States_, in three large volumes, is an able work, and can be consulted with profit.

Census Bulletins, Nos. 6 and 7, describe respectively _The Indebtedness of States in 1880 and 1890_, and _The Financial Condition of Counties_.


See reports of the Director of the Mint, and of the Comptroller of the Currency. See also Knox’s _United States Notes_; Simmer’s _History of American Currency_, and text-books on _Political Economy_.

Public Lands of the United States.

Sato’s _History of the Land Question in the United States_, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV, is the best book for reference. The official source of information regarding the public lands is Donaldson’s enormous report of 1341 pages on _The Public Domain: its History with Statistics_ (1884), published by the government (House Executive Documents 47, Part 4, 46th Congress, 3d Session.) For a short account of _The Disposition of Our Public Lands_, see an article by A.B. Hart, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887. Statistical tables are appended to this article.


See Johnston’s article in Lalor’s _Encyclopaedia_, and authorities there cited. Also McPherson’s _History of Reconstruction_, Dunning’s _United Stales Constitution in Civil War and in Reconstruction_, and W.E. Foster’s _References on the United States Constitution in Civil War_, about to be published (1891).

Party Machinery and National Conventions.

See especially Bryce’s _American Commonwealth_, and Ostrogorski’s _Organisation des parties politiques aux Etats-Unis_. On the Caucus see Whitridge’s _The Caucus System_, published as “Economic Tract” No. 8, by the Society for Political Education, New York.

Political Parties.

Winsor’s _Narrative and Critical History of America_ contains a short history of political parties by Professor Alexander Johnston. See also Johnston’s admirable manual, _History of American Politics_, a book especially adapted for school use. Von Holst’s _Constitutional and Political History of the United States_, six volumes, contains the most comprehensive treatment of the history of political parties. Schouler’s _History of the United States under the Constitution_, is an exceedingly able and interesting work. Four volumes bring this history down to 1847. The fifth volume soon to appear, will bring the narrative down to the Civil War.

The first volume of Von Holst is especially interesting, as giving statements of the various theories held regarding the origin and nature of our constitution. Upon Nullification and Secession, see Von Holst’s _Life of Calhoun_; Stephens’ _War between the States_; Greeley’s _American Conflict_; McPherson’s _Political History of the Rebellion_; and articles in Lalor’s _Encyclopaedia_. The _American Statesman Series_, now being published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., contains valuable biographies of leading American statesmen. See especially in this series Schurz’s _Henry Clay_; Morse’s _Jefferson_; Lodge’s _Webster_; and Von Holst’s _Calhoun_. Upon the Economic contrasts between the North and South, see Von Holst’s Constitutional History, Vol. I, Chapters IX and X. Taussig’s _History of the Tariff_, gives the best history of this much debated subject.