area.

It is, for example, easy to determine, in most cases, where a stream in the glaciated region occupies its preglacial channel, and where its old channel was obstructed by glacial debris so as to turn the river into a new course. It is evident, for instance, that the Cuyahoga River occupies a preglacial channel from Cleveland to the vicinity of Akron, since borings for oil in the valley show gravel for two hundred feet below the present bed of the river. Thus geologists who live in the neighborhood of Cuyahoga Falls have a well defined problem before them, in determining how long it would take the Cuyahoga River to wear out that portion of the gorge below the falls, which is post-glacial. Dr. H. F. Gould, of Berea, Ohio, is already intelligently at work upon a similar problem in connection with the valley of Rocky River, and has already determined, with a good degree of certainty, for thirty miles or more back from the lake, the portions of the channel of that river which are preglacial and those which are post-glacial. The chronological problem before him will be to determine how long it would require the agencies now at work to wear out the portions of the channel which are clearly post-glacial. I have also done something upon a similar problem in connection with Black River and the Falls of Elyria. In the work it has done, almost every stream in the glaciated area offers itself to the discerning student as a chronometer, marking the time which has elapsed since the close of the glacial period. Professor Hicks, of Granville, Ohio, recently published, in a Baptist quarterly, an estimate of the time Raccoon Creek (one of the tributaries of Licking River) must have been occupied in removing the glacial gravel to form its present valley. And both in the April number of the Bibliotheca Sacra and the American Journal of Science for July, the reader will find the results of my own investigations relating to the age of Niagara Falls. Numerous other calculations, bearing upon the same point, will be found in the sixth chapter of my "Studies in Science and Religion." The connections between glacial and archæological investigations are thus, in many ways, both interesting and important.

There is no direct evidence of any connection between preglacial man and the aboriginal inhabitants of America when discovered, except, possibly, with the Esquimaux, whose implements and modes of life have many things in common with palæolithic man. The remains of the enterprising population who mined the copper on Lake Superior, who built the mounds of Wisconsin and of the Mississippi and Ohio valleys, are very recent, relatively, to those left by paleolithic man in New Jersey. The mounds

PLATE VII. (Taken from the author's 'Studies in Science and Religion') gives a general survey, showing the whole of the glaciated area of North America. AA represents the boundary of the glaciated area. The continuous line is from actual survey in 1881. (For completion to Illinois, see Plates V. and VI. The broken part beyond is still somewhat conjectural.) BB marks special glacial accumulation. CC represents Lake Agassiz, a temporary body of water formed by the damming up by ice of the streams flowing into Hudson's Bay, the outlet being, meanwhile, through the Minnesota. D is a driftless region, which ice surrounded without covering. The arrows indicate the direction of glacial scratches. The kames of New England, and the terraces upon the western rivers, are imperfectly shown upon so small a map.

in the Scioto valley are upon the terraces, showing that they were built long after the geological forces set in operation by the glacial period had done their work, and the present equilibrium of nature had been attained.

It is too early yet to attempt to say anything definite about the chronology of palæolithic man. But the most reliable calculations made concerning the date of the close of the glacial period bring it down to comparatively recent times, ranging from eight thousand to twenty thousand years. But how long man had been in existence before that period we have as yet little means of knowing. The calculations of Professor Whitney, however, concerning the age of the remains reported to have been found under Table Mountain, in Calaveras County, California, would carry him back much farther on the Pacific Coast than any definite evidence we have upon the Atlantic. It is fair to say, however, that, as Professor Whitney did not himself see the remains of the celebrated Calaveras skull in place, there is much reason for the doubt expressed regarding the whole matter by such geologists as Dr. Dawson and others. In this whole investigation we must learn to labor and to wait." But so much has already been accomplished that patience will doubtless have a rich reward. G. FREDERICK WRIGHT.

HISTORY AND OPERATION OF THE HOMESTEAD LAW.

It may well be doubted whether any enactment of the Federal Congress, relating to the economy of the government, has exhibited a greater degree of wisdom in its conception, has been more just in policy, or beneficial in its results, than that which, under the name of the "Homestead Act," secures to every person who may see fit to avail himself of its privileges, a free home upon the unappropriated public lands. Like all the settlement and disposition laws, this measure was experimental in its inception, and regarded by many with misgivings and doubt, but it has successfully endured the test of time, dissolving all doubts as to its utility or effects, and after twenty years of practical operation is regarded as the only true method for the primary disposal of the public domain. It is the purpose of this article to briefly trace the origin, history and practical operation of this now world-famous law, which has exerted so marked and

beneficial an influence upon the moral and social status of the Western States and Territories.

The policy of offering the public domain in limited quantities, as a gift or premium to any person who would cultivate and make a permanent home thereon, was established only after long and earnest effort, and to the end was met with stubborn and determined opposition. During the earlier years of the Republic the public lands were regarded solely as an asset from which to derive a revenue for the payment of the current expenses of government and the extinguishment of the national debt. This idea was hard to overcome, and it required many years of unceasing labor to finally convince the people that these lands in the hands of industrious settlers, whose labor creates wealth and contributes to the public resources, were worth more to the government than if they had been reserved for unlimited sales to future purchasers.

It was

The exact origin of the homestead movement cannot be stated. one of those measures which evolved slowly from the consciences of the people, and finally gathering in sentiment demanded and received recognition. It was doubtless suggested by the early preëmption laws, but received its first impetus from a series of laws known as the "Donation Acts." These laws were designed to induce settlements on the public lands in distant ordangerous parts of the Nation, and as a reward to hardy pioneers, who were willing to brave the dangers and hardships of a frontier life, conferred upon them the title to a limited quantity of land. The first of these acts was passed in 1842, and had special reference to the peninsula of "East Florida," and in 1850 a still more liberal law was passed, with special reference to the Territory of Oregon. The enactment of these laws gave a stimulus to the sentiment, then slowly maturing in the public mind, that the public lands were "a heritage of the people," and the question of free homes on every part of the public domain soon became a live and engrossing topic. It was not, however, until 1852 that it may fairly be said to have become a national question. In that year the Free-soil Democracy, which met in National Convention at Pittsburgh, Pa., voiced the popular sentiment by adopting as the twelfth resolution in their declaration of principles the following:

That the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals, nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers.

From this time until the final passage of the law in 1862, it continued

to be one of the leading political issues of the day, finding expression in the press and on the stump, and embodied in the platforms of political parties. Public sentiment became hotly divided upon the subject, and numerous petitions for, as well as remonstrances against it, were presented to Congress. The measure was warmly advocated by the anti-slavery parties who saw in the future recipients of its bounties, the founders of states and cities with personal freedom as their basis, while the pro-slavery element opposed it for the converse reason. It met also the opposition of a large class, from every section of the country, who regarded the measure as a serious innovation upon existing methods and one calculated to disturb, if not overturn, the entire land system relating to settlement and disposition. But no opposition could stem the resistless tide of popular favor, which, year by year, was setting in toward this direction, and though the accident of the civil war, which removed from the National Legislature many who had theretofore opposed it, undoubtedly hastened the law, it must have come, in time, from its own inherent power.

From 1852 until 1862 the attention of Congress was repeatedly called to the matter of free homes by the incessant and constant demands of the friends of the measure, but no decided action seems to have been had until 1859, when a bill "to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain," was first introduced. In all its essential features this bill was the same as the one subsequently introduced, and which constitutes the present law. This bill, having passed through the preliminary stages, was, on February 1, taken up by the House and passed by a vote of 120 yeas to 76 nays, the Northern members mainly voting in the affirmative, the Southern in the negative. In the Senate the bill met a vigorous and determined resistance from the start. Mr. Wade (of Ohio), ably seconded by Mr. Doolittle (of Wisconsin), made many earnest but ineffectual efforts to procure its consideration, but the opposition, by the adroit use of dilatory motions, so managed as to prevent the bill from being taken up, and the session of Congress closed without any action being had thereon.

But the good work, having once been commenced, was not allowed to go down, and on March 6, 1860, Mr. Lovejoy (of Illinois), from the Committee on Public Lands, reported to the House a homestead bill previously introduced by Mr. Grow (of Pennsylvania), which, after having been read and referred, was on March 12, again passed by a vote of 115 yeas to 95 nays, the sections voting substantially as before, i. e., the North for, and the South against, the measure. This bill, like its prede