MAY MEETING THE stated meeting was held on Thursday, the 12th instant, at three o'clock, P. M.; the PRESIDENT in the chair. The record of the last meeting was read and approved; and the list of donors to the Library during the last month was read by the Librarian. The Cabinet-Keeper reported the gift by the Massachusetts Society of Sons of the Revolution of a photogravure of the Fairbanks house at Dedham. The Editor announced gifts from Mr. SHAW for the Samuel Phillips Savage collection, among which is a map of the British Dominions, drawn by Herman Moll, in 1715, on which Captain Jeffrey Gray has drawn in manuscript the proposed line of forts or the "barrier scheme" of 1725 against Indian incursions, extending from Boston to Bay Chaleur. The map was exhibited to the Society by Judge Lemuel Shaw in July, 1855.1 He also announced the deposit by Miss Effie Ellis, of Boston, of two manuscript record books of the Brook Farm Community, of West Roxbury. One is a ledger of expenditures from November, 1844, to September, 1846; and the other is a record of the meetings of the Community, then called Institute for Agriculture and Education. The records of the first meetings are signed "Ch. Anderson Dana," then a student. Henry Morton Lovering, of Taunton, was elected a Resident Member of the Society. The PRESIDENT reported from the Council the appointment of the following committees: House Committee, Messrs. Grenville H. Norcross, Samuel S. Shaw, and Finance Committee, Messrs. C. F. Adams, Grenville H. Norcross, and 1 1 Proc., 111. 37. The PRESIDENT then appointed as the Committee to publish the Proceedings of the Society: Messrs. C. F. Adams, Edward Stanwood, and James It was voted that the income of the Massachusetts Historical Trust Fund for the past year be retained in the Treasury and expended in such objects as to the Council of the Society may seem desirable. CHARLES C. SMITH from the Committee to propose an amendment to the By-Laws read the following report: The Committee appointed at the Annual Meeting to prepare an amendment to the By-Laws relating to the work of the Editor respectfully report: That at the meeting of the Council in December, 1886, "Mr. Winsor moved that a Committee be appointed to consider the expediency of employing an Editor to act under the direction of the various publishing Committees. Messrs. Smith, Winsor and Everett were appointed." This Committee gave the matter careful consideration, and were unanimously of the opinion that the appointment of a salaried Editor would be in. itself desirable, but the financial condition of the Society was such that it would not be practicable to create a new office. This decision was reported orally by Mr. Everett, and the matter was dropped without any formal action by the Council. Two or three years later, at the May meeting of the Society in 1889, Mr. R. C. Winthrop, Jr., in behalf of Dr. Winsor, who was unavoidably absent, called attention to "the favorable showing of the Society's financial condition in the recent report of the Treasurer," and on his motion a Committee of five members of the Society, consisting of Dr. Winsor, as chairman, Dr. Deane, Dr. Young, Judge Chamberlain, and Mr. R. C. Winthrop, Jr., was appointed "to consider and report upon the advisability of adding a third article to Chapter XIII of the By-Laws, thereby authorizing the Council to employ from time to time the services of some competent person to relieve the various Committees of Publication of some portion of their laborious duties." This Committee made a unanimous report at the June meeting recommending the adoption of a new article to be added to Chapter XIII of the By-Laws, the title of which was to be changed to "Of Publications." Their report was accepted, and its recommendations were formally adopted. The new article, which was drawn by Mr. Winthrop, is substantially the same as Article 4 of Chapter XIII of the present By-Laws. After Mr. Smith's return from Europe in the autumn of 1889, he was appointed Editor. By virtue of his Treasurership he was a member of the Council, which body was at all times in direct touch with his work as Editor. After his resignation as Editor in 1907, the office remained vacant for about a year and a half. His successor, Mr. Ford, who had been a Resident Member from November, 1900, until his removal to Washington, two years later, was appointed in the latter part of 1908, and entered on his duties January 1, 1909. At the February meeting of the Society, Mr. Ford was again elected a Resident Member, thereby becoming ex-officio a member of all publishing committees, but not of the Council. Through this circumstance the Council and the Editor ceased to be in direct touch, and it soon became apparent that some inconvenience was likely to be found in carrying on the work of the Society. This difficulty can be remedied by a very slight addition to the By-Laws as they now stand. Your Committee accordingly recommend the insertion in Chapter XIII, Article 4, line 6, after the word "member," of the words "of the Council and." The article will then read: "If the person so appointed be a Resident Member of the Society, he shall be ex-officio a member of the Council and of all committees of publication." CHARLES C. SMITH, WILLIAM R. THAYER, Committee. It was then voted unanimously to amend Article 4, Chapter XIII, of the By-Laws, by inserting the words, "of the Council and," so that the article will read: ART. 4.The Council may appoint a member of the Society, or other competent person, who shall be immediately responsible for the proper editing of all volumes, whether of Collections or Proceedings, the supervision of the Society's copyists, and the adequate preparation of all material intended for the press. If the person so appointed be a Resident Member of the Society, he shall be ex-officio a member of the Council and of all committees of publication; but the authority of any Editor shall be subordinate to that of said committees. The Editor shall receive such salary as may be fixed by the Council. JOHN D. LONG presented a collection of letters and papers of Francis and William Baylies, of Taunton, 1827-1834, given to him by Dr. Loring W. Puffer, of Brockton, who received them from Ellis Ames, of Canton, literary executor of the Baylies brothers. The PRESIDENT read portions of the following paper: CAVALRY IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. In the notice of this meeting the subject of my present paper is given as "The Failure of Washington to utilize Cavalry," and it so chances that this morning's papers announce the unveiling at Washington yesterday of the long delayed Pulaski statue. In connection with my paper the event is of interest, for Count Casimir Pulaski was the first Chief of Cavalry in our Revolutionary Army. Being some twenty-eight years of age, he came to this country with letters from Dr. Franklin in the year 1777, one of a numerous band of Europeans, some, like Lafayette and Steuben, men of rank, character and military training, the larger number adventurers, pure and simple. This matter, by the way, of Europeans drifting in times of war over to America, moved either by motives of sympathy combined with a spirit of adventure, or as soldiers of fortune, I discussed here incidentally two years ago; my attention then being drawn to the subject by the recent publication of what occurred when, in 1861, an attempt was made to induce Garibaldi to take part in our Civil War conflict, at that time in its earliest, or Bull-Run stage. In Garibaldi's case, it will be remembered, difficulty arose from the fact that, while our government was ready to offer him a commission of the highest military rank by law authorized, that of Major-General, Garibaldi, most fortunately, declined to come unless he was immediately to be put in supreme military command, practically made Dictator. This, of course, reduced the whole movement to its proper basis, that of an absurdity. The Garibaldi episode, the circumstances connected 1 3 Proc., 1. 319-325. 2 A somewhat similar proposal was made in the War of Independence. Silas Deane, then in France, and under instructions to engage officers and munitions of war, listened to a suggestion that a commander-in-chief of the American army could be had in Europe, provided sufficient recognition was given to him by Congress. He derived the suggestion from Kalb, who made it in behalf of Charles with which have only recently come to light, never attracted attention; while Pulaski's memory is a tradition, preserved only through the medium of the school-reader by Longfellow's lyric. Yet, as an historical fact, it did devolve on the Pole, Casimir Pulaski, to make the first serious attempt to give form to a systematic American cavalry organization for actual use in practical warfare. Of him and it I shall presently in this paper have more to say. Fifteen years ago I was accidentally led into a somewhat careful as well as critical examination of the actual facts of two Revolutionary battles, as contradistinguished from the accounts thereof contained in our books of history accepted as "standard," the two battles were that at Bunker Hill, on the 17th of June, 1775, and that before Brooklyn, N. Y., known as the Battle of Long Island, fought August 27, of the following year, 1776.1 In connection with the second of these engagements, that on Long Island, my attention was particularly drawn to the curious fact, which I did not remember ever to have seen noticed, that Washington, in the operations he then conducted, had apparently no conception of the use to be made of cavalry, or mounted men, in warfare. His idea of an effective military organization, at least for the work then cut out for him to do, appeared to be a command consisting of infantry of the line, with a suitable artillery contingent. He did not seem at all to grasp the idea of some mounted force as an instrument essential to ascertaining the whereabouts and movements of his opponent, or concealing his own movements. My attention has more recently been drawn again to this subject, while reading two of the later contributions to the military annals of the War of Independence, the volume, published in 1907, of his "American Revolution," by Sir George Otto Trevelyan; and Sydney George Fisher's "Struggle for American Independence," which appeared two years ago. Sir George Trevelyan brings his narrative down to the battle Francis Broglie, known as "Count" Broglie. The Count required a dictatorship, and promised much; but Congress paid no attention to the suggestion, and the matter was dropped, until revived by Thomas Paine in his controversy with Deane. The story is told in Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (Wharton), 1. 391, and Deane Papers (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll.), 111. 362. 1 Amer. Hist. Review, 1. 401-413, April, 1896; 650–670, July, 1896. As respects both battles see also paper entitled "A Plea for Military History," in "Lee at Appomattox and other Papers," 354-361. |