I observed that as your message did not come within the rules laid down for its exercise, I must consider the reasons insufficient, but that I should not change my vote for I considered the reasons addressed to the majority and not to the minority. If I thought the occasion an improper one for its exercise, of course the reasons would seem to me insufficient. The doctrines of the Whigs on this question, and the outrageous menace of the President, may have given me too high ideas in regard to the exercise of this power, and being a lawyer I may lean too much upon legal authorities. With my views, I should ask whether a resolve giving money to schools for instance would have been vetoed because there was no money in the Treasury and no authority to borrow any? If it would, the objection could at most have been only temporary. As to the third reason, I might say that we might easily suppose a state of things in which it would be necessary to take from the income of 1838 to pay the legislature of '37 their usual compensation and that in such case a veto could not be proper though the measure might be objectionable. To the fourth I should say that if the Executive is bound to give effect to the real will of the House, then this reason rides over all the others, together with the yeas and nays, and further that an unparliamentary step on the part of the House would not justify an interference by another department of the government.

The position which was taken by some that you could not officially take notice of our former proceedings or look into our journal is too technical for my taste, and smells of our shop. It was the duty however of the absent to have been at their post and the only great question with me would be whether the Executive could in a matter of legislation exert his power by way of substitution for the missing. So in regard to the yeas and nays I might say that bills have received the signature of the Executive where the yeas and nays were refused, and it might be. a question whether the Governor could officially take cognizance of such circumstances to make them the foundation of an interposition of his power. But these differences of opinion grow out of different views of the proper occasions for its exercise, and certainly I ought not to array my own views hastily expressed as they necessarily were at the time, and even since not matured at all, against your own which have been thoroughly examined with the eye of a statesman, and scrutinized with great mental power. I have but briefly alluded to the points involved, and I should not have done thus much had not I supposed you would 1 In Margin: "Answer sent to here."

willingly hear me suggest the considerations which influenced me in stating openly that I did not concur in the reasons assigned, little as may be the weight to which I know they are entitled and which they would command.

With many apologies for this protracted epistle I remain yours Sir with the highest respect

C. P. HUNTINGTON.

Nullus Deus nisi nodus vindice dignus."1

FROM EDWARD EVERETT.

BOSTON, 23 May, 1837.

DEAR SIR, -I have your favor of the 21st. Should the nomination of Mr. Dewey be confirmed by the Council, in order to furnish all, who may wish to be considered as candidates for the place now filled by him, an opportunity of being named as such, I shall delay the nomination of his successor till the stated quarterly meeting of the Council, in the last week of June.

I ought also to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 15th on the subject of the Compensation resolve, which I read with respectful interest. I am gratified to find that we agree on the only point of supposed difference between us of great importance (viz't the constitutional limits of the veto power) and I do not think it likely we shall find occasion again to settle the bounds of its practical application. I will not therefore, at a moment when the hearts of all good citizens are oppressed by so much weightier cares, annoy you by pursuing the discussion. I am, Dear Sir, with great regard, faithfully yours,

EDWARD EVERETT.

FROM DANIEL WELLS ALVORD.

Confidential.

GREENFIELD, September 28th, 1848.

DEAR SIR, When in Springfield last Monday evening I promised Bangs to have a conversation with you (entirely confidential) in regard to a Candidate for Congress. We both desire that you should be the Candidate, thinking you by far the strongest man, and deeming it very important that the strongest man should be nominated.

1 The correct form is "Nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus," from Horace, De Arte Poetica Liber.

But it is commonly reported about the District that you will not support Van Buren. Taylor men continually make use of your name, and with considerable effect, to injure his prospects, and thus to hurt the Free Soil party. If a Candidate of that party for Congress your name would be more efficient for harm to us in this way than it now is; and we do not wish to give our adversaries an instrument with which to fight us. You will see

at once that we should be in a bad dilemma if we had a candidate who did not belong to our party.

I was told in Northampton that, if you accepted at all, it would be with the condition that you should not be pledged to support Van Buren. Other conditions were mentioned which I did not regard as of much importance, but this one seems to me wholly inadmissible. Can not you get over it? You have perhaps seen the letter of Columbus Delano of Ohio do you not subscribe

to his doctrine? If you will reflect how important it is for us to set up the strongest man, and how exceedingly injurious to us it would be if after nominating a Candidate it should turn out that his name could be used to battle us with, I believe you will excuse me for writing you on the subject.

Have you determined not to support Van Buren? If you have not, can not you, if nominated, in your letter of acceptance, or in a speech to the Convention, or some later speech, or by some other public act, put an end to the use which is thus made of your name to our injury?

I know you do not desire the nomination. Yet I trust that for the good of the cause you will accept it, if tendered, and, by a support of our ticket, place yourself in full communion with the party.

I hope you will answer this letter. Your answer I should like to show to Bangs, or at least to communicate to him its contents. But I will do with it just as you may direct-keeping it entirely to myself if you request it. Yours respectfully,

D. W. ALVORD.

P.S. I have some reason to think that Ashmun1 will not be the Taylor Candidate, and that General Devens will. But I have no such evidence that I can feel sure of this.

I heard in Northampton that my name had been mentioned in connection with the candidacy for the Free Soil party. Independently of any other objections, I could not for a moment think of accepting. There are insuperable obstacles.

1 George Ashmun (1804-1870), at this time in the State Senate.

THE

MARCH MEETING.

HE stated meeting of the Society was held on Thursday the 13th instant at three o'clock in the afternoon, the First Vice-President, Mr. LORD, in the chair.

The record of the February meeting was read and approved.

The Librarian reported the following gifts:

From Mrs. Frederick Lewis Gay, through Mr. John H. Edmonds, seventeen interleaved almanacs, 1726-1794, thirteen of which were kept by Dr. Cotton Tufts, of Weymouth, in 1763, 64, 66-68, 70, 71, 78, 83, 86, 87, 93, and 94; and three by Rev. William Smith, father of Abigail Adams, 1758, 68, and 82. These supplement the interleaved almanacs by the same writers given at the March Meeting, 1909, and Februrary, 1911, by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, the notes in his first gift being printed in the Proceedings for June, 1909.1 The other interleaved almanac in Mrs. Gay's gift was kept in 1726 from March to October, by Rev. Ebenezer Miller (H. C. 1722),

From Lawrence Shaw Mayo and Henry S. Shaw, a number of Shaw family papers, 1818-94.

The Cabinet-Keeper reported the following gifts:

From William F. Jenkins, of West Barnstable, a piece of Sacrament Rock in Barnstable, near which the early settlers received their first sacrament, and held their first town meeting, to mark which a tablet was erected on August 6, 1916, on what remains of the broken rock.

From the Society of Daughters of Colonial Wars, a badge of the Society, Boston, 1917.

From the Navy Department a broadsword, bayonet and cannon ball dug up many years ago on the battle field of Bunker Hill; and a piece of the Death-line fence of Andersonville Prison.

From Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs a photograph of the Robert Gould Shaw monument in Boston, signed by Augustus Saint Gaudens.

The Corresponding Secretary reported that letters had

1 Proceedings, XLII. 444.

been received from Wilbur Cortez Abbott accepting Resident Membership, and from Charles McLean Andrews, of New Haven, accepting Corresponding Membership. He also reported that he had received an acknowledgment of the Society's message of greeting to President Eliot.

William Lawrence Clements, of Bay City, Michigan, was elected a Corresponding Member of the Society.

The Vice-President appointed the following committees in preparation for the annual meeting in April.

To nominate Officers for the ensuing year: Dr. JOHN W. FARLOW, FRED N. ROBINSON, and JOSEPH G. MINOT.

To examine the Library and Cabinet: Rev. WILLIAM W. FENN, CHARLES A. COOLIDGE, and PHILIP HALE.

To examine the Treasurer's Accounts: CHARLES P. GREENOUGH and HAROLD MURDOCK.

The Vice-President stated that Auguste Moireau, a Corresponding Member since February, 1903, died in Paris, December 24, 1919, aged seventy-seven years. He wrote on the French marine under Louis XVI, on the scholar's life in the Middle Ages and on the history of the United States. The Society has only just learned of his death through the Department of State, Washington.

Mr. LORD then read as follows:

A QUARTER CENTURY ANNIVERSARY.

It is worthy of remembrance today that it is twenty-five years since the Society first met in this room in its new building on the occasion of its March meeting in 1899.

No one of the officers of the Society on that day is now living, except our senior member, Mr. Winslow Warren, then a Member at Large of the Council. Only seventeen members of the Society of that day have survived the dread artillery of time.

Those who were then present could easily recall the time when the site of the building was covered with water and over it the tide ebbed and flowed and some, perhaps, as Dr. Green then said, had fished and boated here in the summer