His self permission to hope for "an equal exemption from the interference of European Governments in what relates to the States of the American Continent" is a fine instance of the Multum in parvo in comprehensive political discussion.

Washington on the Potomac is the place of places in President Houston's emphatic language "A God's Earth," for great strokes of this kind-Washington on the Brazos has it's promise too, but we are giving and they get. When I read this announcement drumming us all off this Continent, from the Artic to the Antartic, I could not but pull back to what had been said some distance up the stream of small print. There we had been instructed "that the question of peace or war between the United States and Great Britain is a question of the deepest interest, not only to themselves, but to the Civilized world, since it is scarcely possible that the War could exist between them without endangering the peace of Christendom"

It seems then that there is no objection to as much of United States influence on the Continent of Europe, as may serve to draw one half of it upon our backs in that contingency of deepest interest,-war between the United States and Great Britain; but Great Britain must pretend to no influence on the Continent of America.

This is plain American, if not plain English, on the occasion of the earliest possible formal declaration after the publication of the late Treaty, that the Oregon territory is an open question, and "Treaty of Washington, signed at Washington, August 9, 1842. pari passu with marked approbation of General Cass for volunteering to trip up arrangements at Paris, known to be agreeable to the British Government and Nation.1 Living I may almost say in the United States, and with my attention constantly fixed upon a subject in which United States feeling and assistance are exer

'On December 20, 1841, the Quintuple treaty for the suppression of the African slave trade had been signed at London by England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The treaty gave to each nation a right to search vessels of the other nations signing the treaty. Lewis Cass, American representative at Paris, protested against this, wrote a pamphlet upon the matter of right of search, and appealed to France with such effect that the French government refused to ratify the treaty. For the treaty, see British and Foreign State Papers, XXX, 269.

cising so powerful an effect, I hope to be excused for these reflections

There is no thinking or writing of Texas without adverting to United States politics, and impulses, and I must frankly say that so far as I can judge the late Treaty with Great Britain is generally considered in the United States to be no more than a truce into which it has been convenient for them to enter till our hands are full in other parts of the World, and their own credit and finances have recovered themselves. The Government no doubt has more honest purposes than the general body of the people. As the Government of the United States is the creation of a great majority. In fact, the land, through it's whole length and breadth is infected with the plague of party politics, and electioneering. It is not principles that are a question in that great republic, but the monstrously exaggerated virtues and wisdom of Henry, John, or Thomas, and the still more hideously exaggerated views and folly of Martin, James or Peter. Upon those themes, and for the sake of party success, the Country is in a perpetual ferment, and nothing steady or just can be depended upon at the hands of the Government

Weighing all the circumstances within my reach of judgment, and particularly the undoubted temper of our neighbours East of the Sabine, I certainly do think it is an object of considerable moment to Her Majesty's Government that this Texas question should be firmly and steadily settled, and I lean to the opinion that it is in the power of Her Majesty's Government (so far as Texas is concerned) to effect an eligible arrangement. Monsieur de Cremiel1 the new French Charge d'Affaires to our Court arrived here a week since. He told me it was generally reported at New Orleans in respectable circles that the British Govnt. had refused to take part in the Mediation proposed by Mr. Ashbell Smith,2 and asked if this were so. Finding that He had received no despatches since He left France, and that He was going up to see the President (of Texas) at Washington, probably under mistaken impressions, I begged him to peruse Lord Aberdeen's correspond

'Vicomte Jules de Cramayel, French chargé d'affaires in Texas, 18421844.

2See note, page 93.

ence with Lord Cowley1 upon that subject, which would not only explain to him the feelings of Her Majesty's Government, but of his own too; and enable him to judge how little credit was to be attached to New Orleans reports.

Congress is still in Session, or I should say, in confusion, for the Members from Western Texas, angry at the removal of the capital from Austin have seceded. And there is just a quorum, and that is all, without them. In the present disturbed condition of the Country, it seems to me to be wished that they should all go home, as soon as possible. We have no tidings from the force that has advanced to the Rio Grande but no good can come of such folly as that, and it will be matter of surprize if one half of them get back, that is to say, supposing they do cross the Rio Grande.

My continued concern for these tedious letters must be the coherent tediousness of the subject, and the belief that you will desire to hear more about it, in it's present posture than you could do, or should do from me, if it were better settled. Requesting you to offer my respects to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Canning. Charles Elliot.

To H. U. Addington, Esqr. etc.

By the news from Washington this morning, I find amongst other notices of business before Congress. A resolution (in the H. of Representatives) "to instruct the Committee of Foreign relations to enquire into the expediency of annexing the Republic of Texas to the Ud. States." It is not proposed by one of our great men, and nothing has been done upon it yet: If there be, I shall of course make the Subject a matter of official communication to Lord Aberdeen. I suppose it is only put forward as a feeler. Charles Elliot

'Henry Wellesley, Baron Cowley (1773-1847), British ambassador at Paris, 1841-1846. (Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography.)

On December 20th, R. Scurry introduced the resolution referred to by Elliot. (Journals of the House of Representatives of the Seventh Congress of the Republic of Texas, 89.)—EDITORS OF THE QUARTERLY.

REVIEWS AND NOTICES

The Leading Facts of New Mexican History.1 By Ralph Emerson Twitchell. Volume I. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press. 1911. Pp. xxi, 506.)

With its elaborate footnotes, bibliographies, and facsimiles of manuscripts, this beautifully printed and bound book conveys at first sight the impression that it is the result of much original investigation, and as such it has been represented by uncritical reviewers. But closer examination shows that it is nothing of the sort. The book is, as a matter of fact, purely a compilation, and of the simpler kind, most of the text being either a close paraphrase or a direct copy of two works. If the borrowing had been duly acknowledged, the book would have been welcomed and judged on its merits as a compilation; but it is unfortunately the case that the compiler, while making much show of citation and quotation of supplementary matter in the footnotes, has, either in igorance or flagrant disregard of literary ethics, in the main concealed the sources from which he copied or paraphrased the text, and much of the footnote matter as well, thus creating an impression of independent work which he did not perform. Nor is he relieved of this charge in any important measure by his prefatory remark that "a great deal of the work may best be termed editing," or by an occasional observance of the proprieties, which only serves to further mislead.

Such a statement as this can not be made without at least an indication of the evidence on which it rests, and to this end most of my space will be devoted. Chapters II, III and IV of the book in question deal with the early Spanish exploration of New Mexico. On reading the footnotes and bibliographies one misses references to Lowery's very pertinent work, The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States, 1513-1561. A more careful reading, however, shows that Mr. Twitchell has by no means overlooked it. Indeed, the greater portion of the text of the one hundred ninety-nine pages comprised in these chapters is taken almost bodily from Book II, Chapters III, V and VI of

'Reprinted from The American Historical Review, April, 1912.

that book, but absolutely without credit, for neither the name of Lowery nor of his book receives mention in the work. The order of presentation is identical, with few exceptions, through paragraph after paragraph, page after page, while there are hundreds, if not thousands, of identical phrases, sentences, and even large portions of paragraphs, without a single acknowledgment. Chapter III, for example, on Fray Marcos de Niza, is a paraphrase of Lowery's Chapter V. By actual count one hundred fifty-nine identical phrases or sentences were found in identical connections, although the chapter contains only about ten full pages of text; nor does this statement give an adequate impression of the closeness of the paraphrasing. Very clearly Mr. Twitchell regards Lowery as a reliable translator as well as a safe historian, for the identity extends to numerous extracts translated from the Spanish. In these cases Mr. Twitchell generally cites the same originals as Lowery (except occasionally, as where Lowery's reference to Mota Padilla III somehow becomes "Mota Padilla, 3"), but Lowery

never.

Lowery's book reaches only to 1561, and Mr. Twitchell's anchor for the remainder of his text is Bancroft's Arizona and New Mexico. In this case the compiler's shortage of quotation marks is less obvious, because due credit is given here and there for portions borrowed-in the very paragraphs, indeed, where much greater portions are taken without credit.

Less attention has been paid by the reviewer to Chapter I, dealing with ancient New Mexico, but a casual examination shows that most of pages 4-7 and 42-50 were taken almost verbatim and altogether without credit from Hodge's Handbook of American Indians (part I, pp. 171-172, 305-309, 108-109, 327).

As has already been intimated, the method above described extends in liberal measure to the footnotes, also; and this applies not merely to citations, but to comments and important conclusions as well. For example, more than seventy of the notes in the last one hundred fifty pages were traced directly to Bancroft's Arizona and New Mexico, though no credit is given to that work. An instance, which could be paralleled by others, is note 362, where eighty-seven lines, consisting of a summary based on Vetancourt, are taken verbatim from Bancroft, pages 172-173, although the citation is to the original Spanish work. The only other explana