網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

ing. At the same time a considerable amount of incidental work is done in lettering, and in cleaning and mounting single pieces on silk, and in other ways helping to improve the Library and the Cabinet.

The Society's maps and engravings are now in steel cases, one of which has been added during the year. A desirable change has been made in the arrangement of cases in the Waterston Library, so that the room can now be used as a reading room or for committee meetings. By a little ingenious treatment in other parts of the building, the various divisions of the Library may be made to offer more charm and interest in their use.

JULIUS H. TUTTLE

Librarian

REPORT OF THE CABINET-KEEPER.

The many gifts and other additions to the Cabinet have been fully reported each month and printed in the Proceedings, and it seems unnecessary to repeat them.

Dr. Storer, the Curator of coins and medals, reports that during the past year there have been added to the collection 1509 pieces of paper-money and 177 coins and medals 28 of the latter being Massachusetts pieces, and 79 a collection of Lincoln medals.

[ocr errors]

April 10, 1924.

Dr. FENN read the

Respectively submitted,
GRENVILLE H. NORCROSS.
Cabinet-Keeper.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY

AND CABINET.

The Committee appointed to examine the Library and Cabinet met at the Building of the Society on the morning of Saturday, March 29th. and inspected both the library and the cabinet, accompanied by Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Norcross. Unfortunately, Mr. C. A. Coolidge was unable to meet with the Committee, and his name is appended to this report upon the basis of a separate examination.

The two points in which your Committee was particularly interested were the security and accessibility of the books in the library and the articles in the cabinet. The dangers to security arise mainly from fire, theft and bad housing conditions. Notwithstanding all precautions, there is some slight danger from fire which makes it highly desirable that books now on open shelves in various rooms should be placed together in a fire-proof stack. Security from theft seems to be well assured since the librarian was able to recall the loss from this cause of but a single book in many years. Housing conditions are by no means all that could be desired: the shelves are over crowded and many books are huddled together in piles upon the floors. Binding is somewhat in arrears on account of the greatly increased expense; home-made cases and covers have been ingeniously contrived, but cannot permanently take the place of substantial bindings. There are also broken bindings which should be promptly repaired.

With regard to accessibility, your Committee inquired into cataloguing, ease of finding books and the use of the library by others besides members. The cataloguing seems to be satisfactory and the separate entry of various items in a large collection of papers must be especially serviceable. The librarian reports that there is rarely any delay in procuring any book that may be desired, but it seems to your Committee that there is undue dependence upon the memory of the librarian and his assistants, since now and then the piles of books upon the floors have to be shifted. The librarian reports a gratifying increase in the use of the library by scholars, not members of the Society, who are engaged in historical research, and there is every disposition on his part to encourage such use. The photostat is of service also to scholars at a distance who are unable to visit the library. On the whole, therefore, it may be said that the literary treasures of the Society are reasonably accessible to students, but in the interest of both security and accessibility, there is urgent need of enlarged accommodations. This has been the burden of many previous reports, and the present Committee would emphatically indorse the recommendation of its predecessors that arrangements be made for the construction at the earliest possible moment of a light, airy and

spacious stack adequate to present possessions and future acquisitions. It is indecent that precious books should be so meanly housed.

W. W. FENN, Chairman

PHILIP HALE

CHARLES A. COOLIDGE

As a result of his independent examination, Mr. Coolidge adds the following statement which there has been no opportunity to lay before the whole committee:

The salient fact is this, that it is impossible to have an orderly arrangement of books, and that no makeshift arrangement can be made to help the situation. The only thing to do, and as soon as possible, is to build in a new proper stack as it is impossible to add another series of stacks in the present room as the structure of the building is not strong enough to take it; also the committee should recommend to the members of the Society that they do everything that they can in their power to raise the requisite amount as soon as they can to cover this work. This new stack should have arrangements for Mr. Ford similar to the modern stacks in the Harvard library, so that he can do his editorial work in connection with them.

CHARLES A. COOLIDGE.

Dr. FARLOW, for the Committee to nominate officers for the ensuing year, made a report upon which a ballot was taken.

The officers are as follows:

President.

HENRY CABOT LODGE.

Vice-Presidents.

ARTHUR LORD.

CHARLES HOMER HASKINS.

Recording Secretary.

HENRY WINCHESTER CUNNINGHAM.

Corresponding Secretary.

ROGER BIGELOW MERRIMAN.

Treasurer.

ALLAN FORBES.

Librarian.

JULIUS HERBERT TUTTLE.

Cabinet-Keeper.

GRENVILLE HOWLAND NORCROSS.

Editor.

WORTHINGTON CHAUNCEY FORD.

Members-at-Large of the Council.

FRANCIS RUSSELL HART.

ROBERT GRANT.

CHESTER NOYES GREENOUGH.

MALCOLM STORER.

HAROLD MURDOCK.

Mr. MAYO read a paper on

COLONEL JOHN STARK AT WINTER HILL, 1775.

On February 21, 1777 the Continental Congress appointed ten new brigadier-generals in the American army.1 Washington had urged this action more than once, for he felt that the service would be improved if there were at least one brigadier-general to every three or four regiments. Furthermore he had recommended that each of these new officers be from the same state as the brigade which he was to command. So it came about that Glover of Massachusetts, Varnum of Rhode Island, Wayne of Pennsylvania, and a half-dozen others were appointed brigadiers. The senior colonel of the New Hampshire forces was John Stark, and

1 Journals of the Continental Congress, VII. 141.

2 Writings of George Washington (Ford), 1. 117, 192-194.

it was to be expected that he would be promoted. But it turned out otherwise. Congress appointed Colonel Enoch Poor of Exeter instead. Stark, who was in New Hampshire recruiting his regiment, immediately resigned his commission and retired to his farm at Dunbarton, where he remained until the New Hampshire Congress persuaded him to come forth and obstruct Burgoyne's progress four or five months later.

As far as I am aware this action on the part of the Continental Congress has never been satisfactorily explained. Why should Congress have passed over Stark? Why should the New Hampshire delegates, who presumably determined the nomination, have preferred Colonel Poor? Certainly no one could deny that Stark had fought well at Bunker Hill and more recently at Trenton and Princeton. Poor, too, had a good record. His regiment was not at the rail fence on June 17, 1775, to be sure, but he had given a good account of himself since that time, especially in the dismal retreat from Canada in the summer of '76. Both men had proved themselves good soldiers. But in the matter of seniority Stark came first. He had been a captain in Major Robert Rogers' Rangers in the Old French War, whereas Poor had seen no service prior to his appointment as colonel in May, 1775.1 Recognizing these facts the New Hampshire Convention had appointed Stark colonel of the First New Hampshire Regiment, and Poor of the Second. Apparently the same precedence was observed in the Continental army of 1776, in which Stark commanded the Fifth Regiment, and Poor the Eighth. Now, in February, 1777, Stark was passed over. Why, why was this?

A gradual and not unnatural outgrowth of the incident is the tradition that is was a shameful injustice. Belknap, always temperate, gave merely the bare facts of the case when writing of it about 1790: "A junior officer had been promoted whilst he [Stark] was neglected. He had written on this subject to Congress, and his letters were laid on the table." An anonymous biographical sketch, printed at Concord in 1831, really started the ball rolling by declaring,

1 Report of the Adjutant General of the State of New Hampshire for 1866, II. 297.

« 上一頁繼續 »