arrest and imprisonment by the border ruffian territorial authorities. Mr. Walker gives several instances of this in his own experience, and the narrative is in substance as follows: 1 Sometime in June I received notice that a Capt. McDonald, a border ruffian, was about to raid my cabin and burn everything. I picked ten men from my company, sent my family away, and opened loopholes for rifles; set lookouts and then went to bed. At 2 A. M. I was told that horsemen were coming from the northeast (the Missouri direction). In a moment every man was at his post. It was bright moonlight, and every movement of the marauders was distinguishable; about 30 in force, they rode leisurely up to my house, not expecting resistance. McDonald's orders were distinctly heard. They dismounted, tied their horses to my fence and filed into the yard. When the last man was inside my fence, outspoke ten Sharp's rifles, and four of them lay wounded on the grass. The rest fled; but two men and four horses were captured. John Shannon, son of the governor, was in the party, but escaped unhurt. Among the captives was a notorious desperado named Wauffle, who had lived near me awhile, and had been cared for by Mrs. Walker when sick and deserted by his friends. This fact was generally known, and my wife had difficulty in keeping my men from stringing him up, then and there. At daybreak I disbanded my men, and went to house of a friend to sleep. As soon as Gov. Shannon heard of the fight, in which his son was reported killed, he sent some companies of U. S. soldiers, under Capt. Sturges, an old playmate of mine, and went along with them to avenge his son's death, swearing he would have my scalp before night. He asked my wife where I was; she said I had gone and taken the spoils of the fight with me. Shannon grew very angry, and tried to ride into my cabin; but Capt. Sturges held him back, and placed a guard at my door. . . . As soon as the coast was clear, I left for the Wakarusa rendezvous, and waited there till evening, believing that my cabin was burned. At evening I started for Lawrence. While trudging along, lost in thought, near the claim of Capt. Barber (brother of the man murdered in December), I was startled by the tramp of horses, and looking ahead, saw coming along the road Gov. Shannon, Col. Titus, and Captain Sturges with some 50 soldiers. They were single file, Shannon between Titus and Sturges, the latter followed by his men. I jumped into a clump of bushes, not ten feet from the road, and cocked my rifle, determined to kill the governor, at least, if discovered. But Shannon and his comrades were looking at something, the other side of the road, and did not see me. Captain Sturges and his men all recognized me, some nodding, some smiling and some giving the military salute. 1 Transactions, Kansas State Historical Society, vi. 262, 263. If this is not conclusive as to the attitude of these soldiers, what would be? Another scene in which Walker figured relates to a better known event, the dispersion of the free-state legislature at Topeka by Colonel Sumner, at that time the ranking army officer in the Territory, who had made a treaty with John Brown and his captives three weeks before, by which Pate the Virginian got his freedom. The date now is July 3, 1856. The narrative of Walker continues substantially as follows: 1 Our leaders were then either away or in the hands of the enemy. Colonel Sumner was camped near Topeka with 600 men. The evening before the opening of the legislature, Col. Sumner sent me a note, saying he wished to see me on important business. I went, and found him surrounded by U. S. marshals and deputies, and a large party of proslavery men, among them Acting Governor Woodson, Stringfellow, Judge Cato, Judge Elmore, and others that I did not know. I felt uneasy. Col. Sumner said, "The governor and the marshal both say that if I attempt to disperse the legislature tomorrow, you fellows will resist; that Lane is on the other side of the river with 400 men, and that you can command a thousand more on this side." "That's all nonsense," said I; "there are not 400 men in Topeka. Lane is out of the Territory, and no one will think of hindering you or the marshal." The marshal jumped up and paced up and down. "Do you pretend to say, that the governor and I would misrepresent the facts to Col. Sumner? If he should go into Topeka and attempt to read the governor's proclamation, he would be shot down at the end of the first line." 66 if I can help it." at the governor. well they might. Bah," said I, "no such thing! I am not armed, but I'll go with the colonel, and stand before him till he reads all the messages in Kansas, if you say so. There will be no resistance." On that a Texan named Perkins, an officer in the army, sprang up and handed me his pistols, with "By God, as good a fellow as you shan't be without arms, The governor stared at the marshal, and the marshal They began to lose confidence in the troops, and Many a night, after being hounded all day by the soldiers, under the marshal or governor, have I walked into their camp, and received the treatment of a prince, food and ammunition, more than I could carry away. Col. Sumner called me to one side and said, "Walker, I don't want to hurt any one; you are all right and have my sympathies; but the government is against you, and I must obey the government." He then dismissed me and I went back into Topeka. - 1 Transactions, Kansas State Historical Society, vi. 264, 265. It turned out as Walker had said. Why should Brown, or any other free-state man, wish to shoot at such soldiers as these? The idea is preposterous. One man, however, always tongue-valiant, but never, since his California riot, in any engagement, Charles Robinson, published in his book, issued thirty-six years afterward (1892), a conversation that he says he had with Colonel Sumner in that same July. It is this: .. Colonel Sumner . . . complained that the Legislature compelled him to make a show of force, when Robinson told him the movement [against the legislature] was violating a constitutional right of the people, and had he [Robinson] been at Topeka, he would have made it necessary for him to kill some one in doing so [p. 298]. As the killing would have been in resisting United States soldiers, Robinson would have us believe that he would have done the very thing which he charges Brown with always being ready and eager to do. But the imprisoned governor would have done no such thing. He was probably devoutly thankful that he was in prison, and not called upon to show his valor at Topeka. I need make no more quotations from Walker's lively narration of events. The whole is printed in the sixth volume of the Transactions of the Kansas State Historical Society (pp. 249-274), published in 1900, and never, I think, called in question for its substantial accuracy Walker was a warm friend of Brown, though not agreeing with him in some points; and what he knew about the army would naturally have been known to Brown. He was also a friend of Lane's, and would not have swallowed Robinson's wild tales of Lane's assassination schemes. Had he heard of them, Walker would have said, "That is Lane's tall talk," and laughed them down. I am now coming to a serious examination of the Kansas manuscripts in possession of our Society, but must defer their explanation to a later meeting. Edward Stanwood, for WORTHINGTON C. FORD, of Washington, D. C., a Corresponding Member, communicated the following letters, with an introductory note by Mr. Ford. In this passage of letters between Edward Everett and John McLean is discussed the question of patronage and the principles which should control the distribution of public office. The writers, as well as the time, of the letters make them of historical interest. McLean had served under Monroe and under John Quincy Adams; he passed from Adams into the Jackson régime, as severe a test of a man's character as could be devised. That he had used the patronage of the post-office for political ends was the firm conviction of Adams, who was in a position to know. The very fact that Jackson wished him to remain in the post-office is good proof that he had been useful, if not instrumental, in securing Jackson's election. It was a time of political proscription, and McLean could not have been considered with favor by Jackson if he had remained as neutral as he would wish us to believe he had been. Refusing to make a sweep among the postmasters, he was elevated to the Supreme Bench, where he served for many years, and from which he delivered a dissenting opinion in the momentous Dred Scott case. One point in these letters. can be emphasized, the general testimony given to the high purposes of the younger Adams, and the unanimous commendation given to his methods of appointing to office. This really involves high praise, for no abuse of patronage is laid at his door. (Private.) DEAR SIR, EDWARD EVERETT TO JOHN MCLEAN. BOSTON, 1 Aug. 1828 In pursuance of the intimation in my late letter to you, I now beg leave to make a few remarks, in reply to your letter of the 14 July. It is only to the first of these, that I attach any importance myself, the rest I throw out, rather because you seem to invite the expression of an opinion, than because it ought to have any weight with you, when expressed. All that I wish particularly to say is, that I hope you have not inferred, from the mean and false insinuations in the Boston Statesman, that I have or have had anything to do with editing the Patriot. Your addressing me so particularly, on the subject of editorial remarks in that paper, about the time, when the profligate print, just named, was daily asserting or intimating, that I was engaged, in some way, in editing it, leads me to think it possible, that you might have supposed, that, as in the case of most other lies, there was, at least, a foundation of truth in this. I beg leave, therefore, to assure you, that the insinuation is false, and as mean as false, considering that it was first made, in reference to some editorial remarks in the Patriot, complimentary to myself. With this observation, excited by your having written to me, at this particular juncture, prudence would bid me stop. I will venture, however, on a better principle than prudence, viz: honest frankness, to hazard a few additional remarks, suggested by the general terms of your letter. I need not say, that your course in the administration of your office has, as far as I have been personally concerned or personally acquainted with it, been, in the highest degree, liberal, and such as to command, and, on all proper occasions, to draw forth my acknowledgments. I have, at the same time, supposed, that you were not friendly to the stability of the Administration; that your political partialities lay with the Vice-President [Calhoun]; and that the patronage of your office assumed a corresponding direction. I own I am not in possession of facts, which account sufficiently for my having, at any time, such an impression. Certainly I have none, which makes it difficult for me, to credit your assurance of having pursued a neutral course. For this course, you are aware, you have generally had credit- the administration papers, generally, have commended your official character in the highest terms; and when the question of the increase of salary was before Congress, the Adm? men were as ready to support it, as the Opp I differ from you, a little, as to the extent, to which the members of an Administration ought to carry their neutrality. The Postmaster Genl. is not, by usage, a member of the Cabinet Council; but, as you justly observe, his functions are as delicate and important as those of any officer of the Government, and his patronage probably greater. We are now (happily or unhappily?) in that political condition, that our parties divide, not on principles as formerly, but on personal preferences, so capriciously combined with principles, in different parts of the Union, that what aids a candidate in one place injures him in another. What then binds the mass of the parties together, I say the mass, not the high-minded, few, patriotic individuals, but the mass? Indubitably the hope of office, and its honors and emoluments. The consequence is, that the moment any Administration is formed, every man out of office, and desirous of getting in, is arrayed against it. If the Administration then discard the principle of bestowing patronage on their political friends, they turn against themselves not only the expectants but the incumbents. We both probably know cases, I certainly do, of incumbents, who have actually become hostile, on the calculation, that they are safe now, and can make themselves so, in the contingency of a change. For an Administration then to bestow its patronage, without distinction of party, is to court its own destruction. I think, therefore, that Fidelity to itself requires, that every Administration should have the benefit of the cordial cooperation of all its members. It cannot be supposed, considering how |