where the same is to be drawn, or the prizes therein, or any of them, or the price of a ticket or share therein, or where any ticket may be obtained therein, or in any way aiding or assisting therein. Whoever offends against this provision, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and on conviction, be subject to a fine not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three calendar months."

Lotteries were suppressed in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts at about the same time as in New York. The Governor of Pennsylvania sent a request to neighboring states asking for their coöperation in bringing about the total abolition of lotteries, because of the public and private injuries which have resulted from them. Lotteries were suppressed in Pennsylvania after December 1, 1833.51

Governor Lincoln of Massachusetts also sent an appeal to neighboring states asking for cooperation in the suppression of lotteries.52 He spoke of "Astounding disclosures of an extensively prevalent, although hitherto almost unheeded cause of personal and domestic distress, of legal transgression and of widespread and overwhelming evil." The Massachusetts legislature passed an act abolishing lotteries after February 13, 1833.

The disastrous social effects of lotteries were the chief cause of their abolition. A book entitled "The Lottery System in the United States," written by Job R. Tyson in 1837, gives a statement of cases of insolvency that were due to speculation in lotteries. He furnishes, also, a list of embezzlements, frauds, larcenies, and robberies, which resulted from lottery speculation. He cites also, cases of intemperance and suicide that were due to the same cause.

Lotteries to-day are under the ban of the law in English speaking countries generally; but they still exist in many European countries, notably in Germany,53 Austria, and Italy, where their continued operation under state control is defended upon economic grounds.

51 Assembly Documents, 1834, I, p. 11.

52 Assembly Documents, 1834, II, p. 77.

53 The best account of German lotteries is a dissertation for the doctorate at the University of Bonn, 1882, by F. Endemann, entitled, Beitrage zur Geschichte Der Lotterie und

Zum Heutigen Lotterierechte."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GENERAL WORKS.

Brodhead, "History of the State of New York," 2 vols.
Macaley, "History of the State of New York," 3 vols.

Roberts, "The Planting and the Growth of the Empire State."
Schuyler, "Colonial New York," 2 vols.

Smith, "History of the Late Province of New York," 2 vols.
Janvier, "In Olden New York."

Lamb, "History of the City of New York."

"

Stone, History of New York City."

Valentine, "History of the City of New York."

Wilson, "Memorial History of the City of New York," 4 vols.
Jones, "History of New York During the Revolution,” 2 vols.

EUROPEAN LOTTERIES.

Ashton, "History of Lotteries in England."

Endemann, "Beitrage zur Geschichte der Lotterie und zum Heutigen Lotterierechte.” This work gives not only the history of lotteries in Germany, but also as its title states, an account of the present rights of lotteries.

Corblett, "Historique Sur Les Loteries, in Revue De L'Art Chrétien," 1861, pp. 11-28.

SPECIAL WORKS.

Colonial Laws of New York, 5 vols., Albany, 1894.

Jonurnal of the Legistative Council of New York, 1691-1775. Albany, 1861.

O'Callaghan, "Documentary History of the State of New York," 4 vols., Albany, 1849-51. O'Callaghan, "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York," 15 vols., Albany, 1856, 87.

Newspapers of New York from 1781 to 1833.

Documents of the Senate and of the Assembly for 1832-1834.

Journal of the New York Senate, 1783 to 1833.

Journal of the New York State Assembly from 1783 to 1833.

"Herkimer County Historical Papers," 1896.

Magazine of American History, (various volumes).

Chamber of Commerce Records, pp. 320-322.

Weymouth's New York Gazette, Jan. 17, 1763.

New York Magazine, August, 1790.

North American Review, 37:494.

Niles' Register, 32:122.

Statutes of the State of New York.

Valentine's "Manuals," appendices.

Pasko's "Old New York."

"Lotteries in American History," Spofford, Am. Hist. Assn. Report, 1893.

"Curiosities of the Old Lottery," Brooks, Boston, 1886.

46

Stiness, A Century of Lotteries in Rhode Island," R. I. Hist Soc'y Tracts, Series 2, No. 3.

Tyson, "The Lottery System in the United States," Philadelphia, 1837.

"The Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie," 1905, pp. 99, 101.

BROOKLYN, N. Y.

A. FRANKLIN ROSS.

T

THE MECKLENBURG DECLARATION AGAIN.

HE Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, after passing under the flail periodically and semi-periodically for nearly ninety years, has just been subjected to a new threshing by Mr. William Henry Hoyt of Burlington, Vt., in a new book just issued by G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.

This is perhaps the most effective marshalling of the Anti-Declaration arguments which has yet been set in array. The memories of the Revolutionary fathers; the faded copies of old Carolina newspapers; the musty records of old-time courts; fragments of private correspondence, etc., etc., all are made to toe the line and stand for inspection.

As in a branch of mathematics lately much in vogue, the result is made to hinge upon the "probables" of the premises. As usual the battle rages fiercest around J. McKnitt Alexander. Did he know whereof he affirms? Or, knowing the story, did he tell the truth about those ancient doings? Is not the percentage of "Alexander" in the narrative out of all proportion to the simple facts of the history? Cannot the statements of the old men who were participants in the Charlotte meeting be invalidated, set aside, or explained away, in so far as they apply to the meetings of May 19th and 20th, 1775, and made to apply to the acknowledged meeting of May 31st, just eleven days later? This is the drift of Mr. Hoyt's argument for rejecting the Declaration of Independence of May 20th. That Mr. Hoyt has presented his data in the strongest ad captandum manner, we are ready to concede. He seems to have said the last word to be said from his side of the line. Unless new evidence can be introduced, the "Antis" had as well rest their case where this latest champion has left it.

But taking Mr. Hoyt's own concessions, he has left much to be explained away, e. g., Why is there that general agreement among the old men who were participants in the Charlotte meeting, that the news of the battle of Lexington, April 19th, "just one month before," as the witnesses and old records testify, precipitated the meeting into its Declaration and other forward movements? How can this "just one month," so vividly impressed on those old narrators' minds, be made

to apply to a meeting of May 31st? "Just one month" was a fact contemporaneous with the meeting itself, and spoken of at the time, and noted by all those who were present. It was a salient point, a prominent feature, in their retrospect of that most noted event in their public

careers.

Could they, after more than forty years, scattered as they were into several states, have simultaneously and then for the first time, recalled the fact that the Declaration meeting was held "just one month " after the battle of Lexington? Would those old patriots have remembered that "just one month" intervened, for the first time after more than four decades had passed? Surely this is asking us to believe a little too much. Those old fathers could only have thus remembered a date which had impressed itself upon them at the time of the event it had marked.

Mr. Hoyt and the "Antis" generally concede the fact of the meeting at Charlotte on May 31st, 1775-eleven days after the alleged Declaration was made. This was the "Resolves " meeting.

From the South Carolina Gazette of June 13th, 1775, the May 31st " Resolves" have been extracted. The account is headed:

"CHARLOTTE-TOWN, Mecklenburg County, May 31, 1775. "This day the Committee of this County met, and passed the following Resolves, etc."

In. the Preamble the

Then follow at length the Twenty Resolves. Committee "conceive" that, by virtue of King George's Address to the parliament, declaring the Colonies in rebellion, “all royal laws and commissions are thereby annulled and vacated, and the former civil constitutions of these colonies are, for the present, wholly suspended." Therefore we (the Committee) deem it proper and necessary to pass the following Resolves, viz.," etc.

This "COMMIttee of MecKLENBURG COUNTY" is one of the first objects to attract our attention. Who was, or were, this plenipotentiary "Committee" which thus meets and "RESOLVES" in this high-handed and authoritative manner? Surely, it was not self-appointed, self-chosen, acting on its own sweet, autocratic will? It does not deign to tell us of its own origin, nor of the source of its authority. It simply says: "We

conceive" laws, etc., to be suspended and "WE deem it proper to pass the following Resolves." Then those Twenty Resolves following make us hold our breath before that omnipotent "WE" Committee.

In Resolve I, all Crown commissions in the Colonies are declared " null and void," and "the constitution of each particular colony is wholly suspended." Say, Mr. Hoyt, is not that rather long-distance work, even for "we" of Mecklenburg County, Province of North Carolina?

But Resolve II goes its predecessor still one better, for it declares each Provincial Congress as under direction of the Continental Congress, to be invested with all legislative and executive powers, and no other such powers do or can, exist, at this time, in any of these colonies. Verily we wonder what "WE" will do next.

Resolve III assumes "all laws in this province to be suspended," and "WE," therefore, "judge it necessary to form certain rules and regulations for the internal government of this country, etc." "WE" judge it necessary-IV-that the inhabitants of this county meet on a certain day appointed by THIS COMMITTEE, form themselves into nine companies, "chuse" a Colonel and other military officers "who shall hold their offices independent of the Crown of Great Britain, and former constitutions of this Province."

WE" exercise not only military jurisdiction, but also civil prerogatives, for-V-"WE judge " that each of these nine companies "chuse " from its own body two magistrates whose jurisdiction "WE "WE" define, and no appeal can be taken from these magistrates' decisions save to the Convention of Select-Men of the County.

VI "WE" order these two Select-Men, or magistrates, to appoint two constables to assist them.

VII "WE" order that either of these Select-Men, on any complaint, do issue his order to the Constable to bring the aggressor before him, or them, for trial. VIII "WE" order these eighteen Select-Men to meet quarterly to determine all cases, civil or criminal, all felons shall be imprisoned until the Provincial Congress shall provide laws for proceeding in such cases. (The first recognition thus far of the authority of the Provincial Congress).

IX The Select-Men shall "chuse" a clerk for recording, and for issuing warrants, etc.