aw of Baltimore was better moderated than that in
reference to the colored people. The hog law said at certain seasons
they should run about and at certain seasons be taken up; but the law
referring to colored people allowed them to be taken up at any time.

Chas. Dobson, of Talbot, said that the time had come when free colored
men in this country had been taken up and sold for one year, and when
that year was out, taken up and sold for another year. Who knew what the
next Legislature would do; and if any arrangements could be made to
better their condition, he was in favor of them. He was for the
appointing the committee on the memorial.

B. Jenifer, of Dorchester, opposed the resolution; he was not in favor
of memorializing the Legislature--it had determined to carry out certain
things, and it was a progressive work.

Chas. Wyman, of Caroline; Jos. Bantem, of Talbot; John H. Walker, Chas.
O. Fisher and others discussed the resolution which was finally adopted.

The following is the committee appointed: Jno. H. Walker and Jas. A.
Handy, of Baltimore; William Perkins, of Kent; Thomas Fuller, of
Dorchester; and Daniel J. Ross, of Hartford county.

A resolution of thanks to the officers of the Convention, the reporters
of the morning papers, and authorities for their protection, was
adopted. The proceedings were also ordered to be printed in pamphlet
form.

The Convention, at 3 o'clock adjourned to meet on the second Monday in
November, 1853, at Frederick, Md.

--From the _Baltimore Sun_, July 27, 28, and 29, 1852.

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

_The Slaveholding Indians. Volume I: As Slaveholder and Secessionist._
By Annie Heloise Abel, Ph.D. The Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland, 1915.
Pp. 394.

This is the first of three volumes on the slaveholding Indians planned by
the author. Volume II is to treat of the Indians as participants in the
Civil War and Volume III on the Indian under Reconstruction.

The present volume deals with a phase, as the author says, "of American
Civil War history, which has heretofore been almost neglected, or where
dealt with, either misunderstood or misinterpreted." It comes as a surprise
to most of us that the Indian played a part of sufficient importance within
the Union to have the right to have something to say about secession. Yet
inconsistently enough he was considered so much a foreigner that both the
South