effective than the lithograph ever was, and hardly less impressive than the original crayon. It only remains for me to say that the young artist of 1846, by whom the head was taken, is now one of the most distinguished painters in our country, — Eastman Johnson, who has long had a studio in New York, and who has far more than "fulfilled the promise of his spring," great as that promise was. He took several other crayons in Washington at the same time, among others, a small one of myself, and a large and admirable one of Mrs. President Madison, which came into Mr. Webster's possession, as the gift of the artist, and which I have seen on the walls of his Marshfield residence. I may add that my crayon has been photographed at the earnest instigation of my accomplished and valued friend. Dr. Francis Wharton, now the counsellor of the Secretary of State on International Law, and that at his request I presented a copy for one of the rooms of the Department of State at Washington, which, by a casual coincidence, arrived and was hung there on Webster's birthday, the 18th of January last. The PRESIDENT read a letter of sympathy prepared to be sent to Governor Hutchinson, on his departure for England, by some prominent citizens of Milton. An indignant protest from other citizens compelled the retraction before the letter was sent. The papers will appear in the History of Milton now in preparation. Mr. DEANE offered a resolution from the Council, that a committee be appointed to inquire into the value and extent of the labors of Mr. B. F. Stevens in publishing from the archives of the States of Europe the diplomatic correspondence and other papers relating to the United States between 1772 and 1784, and to report whether or not it be desirable for this Society to take any action to encourage the work. Mr. Winsor and Dr. Green were appointed members of this committee. Dr. MOORE remarked:· In the Proceedings of the Society on the 28th of January, 1830, as printed in Vol. I. p. 426, it appears to have been "Voted, That a Committee be appointed to address the city authorities on the subject of a centennial celebration of the settlement of Boston. The President (Mr. Davis), Mr. Winthrop, Mr. Savage, and Dr. Harris were appointed." A footnote by the editors of the volume states that "there is no record of any action having been taken by this Committee. on the subject referred to them." I have observed that this matter was noticed by the President of the Society (Mr. Winthrop), at the meeting in September, 1879, in anticipation of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary,1 celebrated in the following year. As the action of this Society was the first step towards what proved to be so interesting a celebration, it seems to me desirable that everything relating to it should be restored to its records, so far as possible; and I ask leave therefore to suggest that the letter written by that Committee be reproduced in the Proceedings at this time. It will be found in the Report of the doings of the City Council. It bears date Feb. 4, 1830, is signed by all the members of the Committee, and is a very interesting document, as might be expected. It was printed in more than one of the newspapers of the day, among which I have noted the "Boston Daily Advertiser" of Feb. 11, 1830, from which it may be copied for the Proceedings, if my suggestion is received with favor. A communication from the Massachusetts Historical Society, enclosing a vote of that Society appointing Messrs. Davis, Winthrop, Savage, and Dr. Harris a Committee to address the city authorities on the subject of a centennial celebration of the first settlement of Boston, together with the following address of that Committee, came down committed to the Mayor and Aldermen Russell and Lewis; and Messrs. Bigelow, Minns, James, Eveleth, and Gragg were joined. BOSTON, Feb. 4, 1830. SIR, The arrival of the year in which two centuries are completed since the foundation of Boston was laid, deserving, in the opinion of the Massachusetts Historical Society, some appropriate observances, they, at the first meeting held this year, appointed the subscribers a Committee to address the city authorities on the subject. The practice of all communities, especially of those who have the satisfaction of referring their national birth to honored ancestors, may well be 1 Proceedings, vol. xvii. p. 122. followed by us, on whom the eyes of all people, in distant quarters of the earth, are turned with admiration at the happy union which we enjoy of civil, political, and religious liberty, beyond any whom history records. However highly we appreciate our institutions of government, framed principally in our own day, we can never forget that their origin is legitimately derived from the unwavering constancy, dauntless courage, sound learning, sober judgment, enlightened equity, and pure principles of the true-hearted, self-exiled Fathers of New England, the exalted characters from whom a vast majority of our fellow-citizens are descended. With these impressions, and in performance of the duty of our commission, we would respectfully request the city authorities to take into consideration the expediency of adopting such timely measures for a celebration of the second century of Boston as to their wisdom may seem proper. In regard to the particular day to be selected, some differences of opinion may be expected to occur. There are three dates which seem to have claim to this distinction, September 7 (in the current style, September 17), July 30 (August 9, N. S.), and June 12 (22, N. S.) On the 7th of September, 1630, at the second Court of Assistants held at Charlestown, it was ordered that Trimountain be called Boston. Before that time, however, many of those who had then recently arrived from England, and among them several of the leading characters, had decided on a settlement upon this peninsula. This consideration has induced a preference in the minds of some for the 30th of July, when the first covenant was entered into by Governor Winthrop, Deputy-Governor Dudley, Isaac Johnson, Esq., and the Rev. John Wilson, by which the foundation of the first Church of Christ in Boston was established. The still earlier date of June 12 is recommended by the interesting circumstance that it was the day of the arrival of the “ Arbella, Admiral of the New England fleet," with the Charter, deservedly so dear to our ancestors, and with Governor Winthrop and several of the Assistants on board. The selection of the day and the whole subject is cheerfully submitted to the decision of the city authorities, to whom these suggestions may be communicated. Very respectfully, we are, Sir, your ob't servants, General CARRINGTON, being called upon, spoke sujetan tially as follows: Mr. Winsor has very properly outlined the grounds upon which exaggerated estimates have been made as to the number of troops which served in the American Army during the Wiar for National Independence. The beat approximation to the namber of those who rendered actual duty is derived from the 66 one consideration of similar estimates as to the active force employed during our civil war. To this end it is well to notice that the acts of Congress which shaped enlistments, drafts, and bounties from 1861 to 1865 were almost literal reproductions of statutes which governed the creation and employment of the Continental Army from 1776 to 1783. "Minute men," "three months' men," "one hundred days' enlistments," year enlistments," and finally "enlistments for three years, or during the war," successively followed, as the scope of operations enlarged, or the duration of the struggle became uncertain. It was with full regard for this analogy that the author of "Battles of the American Revolution," in treating of the strength of armies employed," quoted the figures 233,771 as the basis of contributions by the various States, treating the figures as years of enlistment for service, and not as representing that number of men. The purpose was to suggest the cause of the exaggeration, and not minutely to analyze the details. 66 The context speaks of "minute men coming at call, and dissolving as quickly." The phrase "years of enlistment" and the clause," Hence a man who served from April 19, 1775, until the formal cessation of hostilities, April 19, 1783, counted as eight, in the aggregate," italicizing the words counted as eight, are not statements of literal fact, but a conditional statement, to show how the exaggeration was inevitable. Very few men served during the eight years, and every fractional service of less time than a year proportionably diminished the value of the aggregate as representative of a standing army. No better illustration of the author's general purpose, in the very line of Mr. Winsor's paper, can be given than by reference to incidents that came under his personal notice during the civil war. At its very outset, and before the Western troops called for by Mr. Lincoln had been generally mustered into the service of the United States, he was called upon, as Adjutant General of Ohio, to place in Western Virginia, for three months, nine regiments of Ohio militia. The State subsequently gained credit for that service. The same regiments, from numbers thirteen to twenty-one inclusive, taking their numbers from regiments raised during the Mexican War, afterward enlisted in the United States Service for "three months," then for "three years," and then "veteranized" for And so in 1863 the same officer was assigned to duty at Cleveland, to organize “one hundred day troops," which, under a sudden emergency, were proposed as a supplement to the army in the field. In Indiana its militia, known as the Indiana Legion, was organized and armed for border defence to the number of eighteen thousand; and their service was taken in account on the settlement of the claims of that State against the United States, for service rendered and expense incurred. The suggestions of Mr. Winsor are even more striking as applied to conditions existing at the time of the Revolution, when the Count de Rochambeau felt constrained to write to the Count de Vergennes in these terms, as to the American people: "Their means of resistance are only momentary, and called forth when they are attacked in their homes. . . . They then assemble for the moment of immediate danger and defend themselves. . . . Washington sometimes commands fifteen thousand, sometimes three thousand men." It is of interest to note, in this connection, a corresponding error in estimate of the British forces, which can be more readily related to formal and reliable data. Many of the regi ments which formed part of the garrison of Boston served during the war; and however recruited, from time to time, they preserved an identity not possible with the regiments of the fluctuating American service. Thus the Twenty-third served at Boston, Brandywine, Camden, and Guilford Court House. The Seventeenth was at Boston, Monmouth, and Springfield. The Fortieth was at Boston, Princeton, Brandywine, and New London. Fourteen of the regiments which formed part of the Boston garrison became important factors in nearly every important engagement. The single fact that the French contingent, alone, made the American Army competent to lock Clinton within his New York lines and force the surrender of Cornwallis, is a clear index to the comparative feebleness of the Continental Army, as such. I know of few incidents of the Revolutionary War which more strikingly illustrate the matter under notice than the fact that a letter from Colonel de Hart, dated at Morristown, New Jersey, Dec. 27, 1776, stating that "the three regiments |