cowlick on the right side, eyes prominent and of a dark hue, his complexion rather florid-somewhat corpulent, well proportioned, and finely formed for strength and agility, large eyebrows, nose straight and rather broad, teeth perfectly white, a profuse head of hair, short on the forehead, turned up some, and deeply powdered and clubbed. When he took off his cocked hat he would lightly brush up his hair forward, while with a fascinating smile lighting up his countenance he took his seat in court opposite his opponent."

Elkanah Watson, in his Memoirs, says: "Mr. Varnum was one of the most eminent lawyers and distinguished orators in the Colonies. I first heard him deliver a Masonic oration in 1774. Until that moment I had formed no conception of the powers and charm of oratory. The effect of his splendid exhibition has remained for forty-eight years indelibly fixed upon my mind. I then compared his mind to a beautiful parterre from which he was enabled to pluck the most gorgeous and fanciful flowers, in his progress, to enrich and embellish his subject. Lavater would have pronounced him an orator from the vivid flashing of his eye and the delicate beauty of his classic mouth.

In August, 1787, General Varnum became one of the directors in the "Ohio Company of Associates," and in the following October was ap

HONORABLE JOSEPH BRADLEY VARNUM, 1750-1821.

[From a painting by Elliott in possession of James M. Varnum, of New York.]

pointed by Congress one of the judges of the territory northwest of the Ohio. He arrived at Marietta, Ohio, early in June, 1788, to assume his

official duties, and on the Fourth of July delivered an oration there which was subsequently published by the Ohio Company. The oration was short, but contained many beauties both in sentiment and language.

He assisted Governor Le Clair and the other officials in framing a code of laws for the territory, but this was his last official act; for his health, which had been declining when he left home, rapidly became worse, and the disease from which he suffered terminated fatally on the 10th day of January, 1789.

General Varnum's career was active but brief. Admitted to the bar at twenty-two, he was a colonel in the army at twenty-six, a brigadier-general at twenty-eight, resigned his commission and was elected to Congress at thirty-one, appointed judge and emigrated to the West at thirty-nine, and died at forty. He was one of the original members of the Society of the Cincinnati, in 1783, and the second president of the Rhode Island society of that distinguished Order, presiding for the last time at the annual meeting, July 4, 1787.

General Varnum's next younger brother, the Honorable Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, was born at Dracut, Massachusetts, 29th of February, 1750, and died there 11th September, 1821. He was appointed, in 1776, captain of the 10th company, Seventh Regiment of Massachusetts Militia; and was a state senator from 1785 to 1795, inclusive, and in 1817, 1818, 1820, and 1821.

During "Shay's rebellion" he marched at the head of his company, and was on duty at Pittsfield, when General Lincoln highly commended him for his patriotic example and services. He served also as sheriff of Middlesex, and justice of the court of Common Pleas, and chief justice of the court of General Sessions of the same county, and was a member of the Massachusetts state convention which ratified the United States Constitution.

On April 4, 1787, he was appointed colonel of the Seventh Regiment, Massachusetts militia; on November 22, 1802, promoted to a brigadier-general in the Third Division, and on June 12, 1805, was created major-general of the same division. From 1795 to 1811 he was a Representative in the National Congress, and was Speaker of the House during the Tenth and Eleventh Congresses, after which he was elected United States Senator from Massachusetts, holding his seat six years, from 1811 to 1817; and was president pro tempore of the Senate, and acting Vice-President of the United States, from December 6, 1813, to April 17, 1814.

Ata Bird Sardiner

HOW CALIFORNIA WAS SECURED

Americans in general fondly believe that California was seized by their government just in time to save her from the grasp of England. Indeed, some color of truth is given to this belief by the writings of travelers who visited the province. They had praised California highly, and had predicted that she would not long remain a Mexican possession. And they had shown what an advantage it would be to her and to England to have her under the British flag, rather than under the stars and stripes. Popular writers had echoed these sentiments and had ridiculed the claims of the United States to any exclusive rights there. Some of the English holders of Mexican bonds were in favor of accepting California lands in settlement of their claims, but this project had died out at the beginning of the Mexican war. No official utterance is at hand to indicate that England had the slightest intention or desire of obtaining California by conquest or purchase, and no evidence to show that she encouraged the colonization plans of the bondholders. The bulky testimony in favor of the English scheme is made up wholly of mere statements of belief by men who had no means of penetrating the court secrets in London. It is apparent that England did not desire California at the price of serious complications with the United States, and she seems never to have had a definite plan of making the territory a British possession.

England, however, made no secret of her opposition to the further extension of American territory on the Pacific. She wished to prevent it, if she could do so by diplomacy, or by any other means than war. Therefore the theory that she contemplated a protectorate has more plausibility. Her squadron and that of the United States were hovering about Mazatlan when the war with Mexico began, and Commodore Sloat, the American commander, was under standing and positive orders to take California as soon as hostilities opened. Was the English commander also under instructions to raise his flag at Monterey, or was Admiral Seymour likely to assume the responsibility of such an act? Many writers have told of the race up the coast between the two flag-ships, and have assumed that California was won because Sloat reached the goal first. But the different accounts of this race hopelessly conflict with each other, and the contest evidently had no other foundation than in vivid imaginations. While it is bold to assert that previous writers have fallen into error in regard to

the protectorate, yet, in the absence of all positive proofs, the attendant circumstances seem to be against them. A careful examination of the facts at hand almost irresistibly gives the conclusion that the danger of British intervention was a mere bugbear.

Had Admiral Seymour designed to take possession of California as soon as war was declared between Mexico and the United States, the course of the American commander gave him ample opportunity. The gallant commodore did not act with all the dash and brilliance that commonly have been ascribed to him. His instructions from Bancroft, Secretary of the Navy, were positive, and indicate-what writers have repeatedly inferred from the course of naval operations on the Pacific-that naval commanders there were for a number of years under standing orders to occupy California in case of war with Mexico, and in any event to prevent the country from falling into the hands of England or France. On June 24, 1845, after Congress had ratified the measure which Mexico had declared would be a casus belli, Bancroft wrote "secret and confidential instructions" to Commodore Sloat: "The Mexican ports on the Pacific are said to be open and defenceless. If you ascertain with certainty that Mexico has declared war against the United States, you will at once possess yourself of the port of San Francisco, and blockade or occupy such other ports as your forces may permit. Yet you will be careful to preserve, if possible, the most friendly relations with the inhabitants, and will encourage them to adopt a course of neutrality." On August 5 and October 17 of the same year, Bancroft called Sloat's attention anew to the importance of acting upon his instructions promptly. In the first of these the phrase "in the event of war" was used, instead of "if you ascertain with certainty that Mexico has declared war," and in the second the term "in the event of actual hostilities was used.

On May 13, 1846, Bancroft wrote to Sloat: "The state of things alluded to in my letter of June 24, 1845, has occurred. You will therefore now be governed by the instructions therein contained, and carry into effect the orders then communicated, with energy and promptitude." Two days later he wrote: "You will consider the most important public object to be to take and to hold possession of San Francisco, and this you will do without fail. You will also take possession of Mazatlan and of Monterey, one or both, as your force will permit. If information received here is correct, you can establish friendly relations between your squadron and the inhabitants of each of these three places. . . You will, as opportunity offers, conciliate the confidence of the people of California, and also in Sonora, toward the government of the United States; and you will en