At the time of our narrative, there were about four cabins at this latter place, one of which was alone inhabited, and five old soldiers in it, who had followed James Harrod from the Monongahela country. This distinguished explorer had likewise settled a place, known as Harrod's station, about six miles south-east of Harrodsburg.

Scarcely had the fort of Boonesboro' been roughly and loosely constructed, certainly not finished, till the 14th of June, 1775, than these hardy pioneers carrying with them into the wilderness the manly principles of their British ancestors, undertook to organize a form of government in these distant and almost uninhabited forests. This is an interesting portion of western history little dwelt on, and not sufficiently known. It has not received the slightest notice from the earliest historians, not even from the well informed Marshall. The whole affairs of Henderson & Co. seem to have been ignored by this author. But, however unfounded the claims of the company were; they issued grants of land to a great extent; so that by the 1st of December, 1775, 560,000 acres of land were entered, as is presumed, in their office. Deeds of great formality were issued by this company, calling themselves "Proprietors of the Colony of Transylvania." By these deeds, the grantees under the company, bound themselves to pay them "one moiety or half part of all gold, silver, copper, lead or sulphur mines; and moreover to pay the company a rent, as might be agreed on "yearly and for every year." The penalty for not paying this rent, was provided for by a covenant, "that if no sufficient distress can be found on the premises, whereon itshall be lawful for said company to levy such rent, or arrears, with full costs, charges and expenses in making and levying the same, then the present grant and all assignment shall be void and of none effect.” The company then reserved a right, "to reenter into the said lands, and regrant the same to any other person or persons whatsoever.”* Had this company retained its title, they would, within their purchase, have been under a quit rent to those great proprietors forever.

It is, however, much to be doubted whether the high temper of the western people amidst the vast wilderness of uncultivated land, would have submitted to a state of things which had been a constant source of heart burnings in the elder colonies, and has continued to our own times in the State of New York. Sooner, indeed, than have been anything less than fee simple or allodial proprietors, the hunters of the West, (had they not risen in arms,) would have abandoned the country to those land proprietors for lands to be freely obtained, in terms more suitable to their interests and their feelings. Symptoms of slight hold these terms had upon the hearts of the people, may be inferred from the fact that upon the earliest manifestations of Indian hostilities, 300 men are said to have left the country by July, 1776.† Col. Clark intimates the same, in his memoir, which will hereafter invite the reader's attention. In this, he remarks, that the company took great pains to ingratiate themselves in the favor of the people; but, too soon for their own interest, began to raise upon their lands which caused many complain."

* Deeds of the Transylvania Company, in the Henderson Papers.
Correspondence of Col. Floyd.

Notwithstanding these discontents incident to frontier life, the settlers under the company soon proceeded to organize a government: for the infant colony. Nor is it one of the least curious in the history of our pioneers, while engaged amidst the perils of wilderness life.

Fragment of Faust.

FROM THE GERMAN OF GOETHE.

THE proposition to improve rivers and harbors by authorizing individual States to collect tonnage duties for those objects, has recently assumed a prominence which seems to challenge investigation. It is about two years since this new system was first suggested and though, as we believe, it received no encouragement from the people of the West-the region where improvements are most needed-we nevertheless find it shadowed forth in the President's Message to the First session of the Thirty-third Congress, and subsequently more fully developed in a communication from a western Senator to the Governor of the State of Illinois, with a request that the subject should be submitted to the Legislature of that State for its consideration.

Assuming that the communication of Senator Douglas was designed as an expose of the evils of the present system, and also to point out the means of accomplishing the improvement of rivers and harbors, in a shorter period, and at less expense, than if left under the control of the General Government, we propose to submit some reflections of our own to the serious consideration of western men.

We most fully agree with Senator Douglas in repudiating, "as unreasonable and unjust, all injurious discriminations predicated upon salt water and tidal arguments," and furthermore "insist that if the power of Congress to protect navigation has any existence in the constitution, it reaches every portion of the Union where the water is in fact navigable, and only ceases where the fact fails to exist." The author proceeds to say "this power has been affirmed in some form, and exercised to a greater or less ex

tent, by each successive Congress and every administration since the adoption of the Federal Constitution."

But it is now proposed to transfer this power to the individual States with authority to collect tonnage duties, to enable them to make such improvements in their rivers and harbors as the wants of commerce may require. The reasons assigned for this change of system are, the vacilating policy of the General Government in respect to the improvement of rivers in the West, and harbors on the northern lakes; the difficulty of obtaining appropriations for proper objects without embracing others which ought to be rejected; and the want of efficiency, on the part of the government, in prosecuting all works of this nature.

ence.

We acknowledge the full force of these reasons, and many are the evils which the West has suffered in consequence of their existBut if there were no legal objections to the scheme proposed, and were it certain that all the States would agree to cooperate and enter upon the work without delay, yet there are sufficient reasons, as we believe, why the Western States should not consent to the change proposed.

In noticing some of the objections which seem to have been urged against the system, the author says: "No matter who is intrusted with the construction of the works, somebody must foot the bill." And in another place he says: "inasmuch as the expense of constructing river and harbor improvements must, under either plan, be defrayed by a tax upon commerce in the first instance, and finally upon the whole people interested in that commerce, I am of the opinion that the burdens would be less under the system referred to in the message than by appropriations from the Federal treasury." This may be truc as a general proportion embracing the entire circle of domestic and foreign commerce, but it appears obvious to our view that were the Western States to undertake the improvement of their own rivers by collecting tonnage duties to defray the cost, a much larger portion of the burden must be borne by them than by the consumers of their products, either in the Eastern States or in Europe. A duty on tonnage affects exports as well as imports, and the producer who should pay one dollar for the privilege of landing a hogshead of tobacco in St. Louis, would never find a market at home or abroad where he could sell the commodity for anything more than if it had been entered free of duty. In this case the tax is not upon commerce ›

but upon the producer, upon agriculture. It is true, if Missouri were to undertake the improvement of her own rivers and harbors, the amount of national revenue required to be collected would be less than if the work were done at the charge of the General Government; but, under the new system, Missouri would bear the entire burden of the improvement, and still contribute her full proportion to the revenue collected by the nation for all other objects. Indeed this would be a most humiliating acquiescence in all the "injurious discriminations predicated upon salt water and tidal argument," which have been made since the adoption of the Federal constitution. The people of the West have been paying taxes for more than sixty years to aid in making improvements on the Atlantic Coast, and now it is proposed to give them the privilege of making their own improvements by taxing themselves. And this too, at a time when the accumulation of money in the national treasury is a source of embarrassment to the government as well

as to commerce.

The duties on the commerce of the United States are collected chiefly at New York, and other eastern cities, and a just policy would seem to require that the disbursements from the national treasury should be distributed as equally throughout the Union as the nature of the case will admit. In a financial view, this new system would operate with decided effect against the Western States: for whilst the duties paid on the foreign merchandize which they consume would be disbursed in other parts of the country, they would be compelled to withdraw a portion of their finances from commerce and other objects to carry on their works of improvement.

One of the principal arguments in favor of this system is based upon the immediate necessity of improving western rivers and harbors, and the delays incident to the prosecution of all such works by the General Government. But when will the Territories and new States bordering on the Missouri and upper Mississippi possess a sufficient amount of commerce to improve the navigation of those rivers within their borders? Contending with all the privations incident to the settlement of new countries; remote from the great markets; producing but little to export, and paying high prices for their imports; is it reasonable or just to expect that they would add still more to their privations and burdens by collecting a tonnage duty to improve their rivers? The case of these new