Chapter I: The Press in England Before the Nineteenth Century

Immediately on the introduction of printing the Church assumed towards it an attitude at once intimate and watchful. Since all that affected the welfare of the mind and the health of the soul was of importance to the Church, it was not at all surprising that the demand was at once made that nothing should be put forth by the press save that which had received the sanction—the “Imprimatur”—of the Diocesan authority, or later of the official delegated by the personal representative of the Papacy. The rules that were laid down for the direction of the printer were full and explicit, and no resistance seems to have been attempted at the period of the Reformation in England, the power of supervision over all forms of printing passed from the hands of the Church to the civil authority. This followed naturally from the theory that the King, as Head of the Church, inherited all rights of oversight in matters of opinion and morals formerly pertaining to the Pope, and exercised in England by the Bishops in his name. The Henrician and Elizabethan Bishops still gave the “Imprimatur,” but it was now as representing the King. The fact of publication without authority was in itself a crime deserving of severe punishment.[33]

A further step in the restriction of printing was the establishment (in line with the general tendencies of the time), of monopolies by patent. In 1557 the Stationers’ Company was formed of ninety-seven London stationers, and to it was committed the sole right to print books licensed by the proper authority.[34] As representing the Sovereign, the Star Chamber exercised a supervision over the manner in which the law was carried out; in 1559 it ordered that all books were to read by a Bishop or a member of the Privy Council before going to the press, and in 1586 gave permission for a printing press to be set up in each University, the licenser in this case being the Vice Chancellor. In the same year the Star Chamber ordered that all books were to be read and licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, with the exception of law books which were to be read by the Chief Justice of either Bench or the Lord Chief Baron.

Proclamations issued by Queen Elizabeth from time to time,[35] indicate the difficulty found in enforcing this monopoly and requirement of licensing, and a proclamation issued by Elizabeth[36] against “bringing into the realm unlawful books” indicates that the statute of Henry VIII[37] repealing the permission given in the reign of Richard III to import books from abroad[38] was being systematically disregarded. Attorney-general Popham gives witness to the same effect when in his speech before the Star Chamber in the prosecution of Sir R. Knightley and others he says, “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, in her great wisdom, hath issued proclamations that no pamphlets or treatises should be put in print but such as should first be seen and allowed; and further, lest that were not sufficient, she ordained that no printing should be used anywhere but in London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Notwithstanding all this served not, but they would print in corners and spread abroad things unprinted: wherefore Her Majesty set forth a proclamation _in anno 25_ that all Brownist books, and such other seditious books should be suppressed and burnt.[39]

The Star Chamber continued to exercise control over printing during the reign of James I, but with increasing difficulty, not lessened by the arbitrary and cruel ways in which it acted towards those whom it believed to be breaking its rules and regulations. The flood of books printed abroad continued into the reign of Charles I, and in 1637 we find a Star Chamber decree, “for reducing the number of master-printers, and punishing all others that should follow the trade, and for prohibiting as well the impression of all new books without license, and of such as have been licensed formerly without a new one, as the importation of all books in the English tongue, printed abroad, and of all foreign books whatever, till a true catalogue has been presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, and the books themselves had been received by their chaplains, or other learned men of their appointment, together with the masters and wardens of the Stationers’ Company.” A printer disobeying this order was to be fined, disabled from printing thereafter and the printing press forfeited.

The quarrel between Charles I and the Long Parliament resulted in the abolition of the Star Chamber, but the only result, as far as the press was concerned, was a change in masters, the Crown giving place to Parliament. From time to time orders were issued by the Parliament[40] similar in tone to those of the Star Chamber. One dated June 14, 1643, directs that “no book, pamphlet, paper, nor part of any such book, pamphlet, or paper, shall from henceforth be printed, bound, stitched, or put out to sale, by any person or persons whatsoever unless the same be first approved and licensed under the hands of such persons as both, or either, of the Houses, shall appoint for licensing of the same, and be entered in the Register Book of the Company of Stationers, according to ancient custom, and the printer thereof shall put his name thereto.” It was in reply to this action by Parliament that Milton produced in 1644 his “Areopagitica,” that matchless plea for freedom of speech and the liberty of the press. “We should be wary therefore,” he writes, “what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man, preserved and stored up in books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom; and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at the ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself; slays an immortality rather than a life.”[41]

But these stirring words fell on ears dulled by the clamor of contending battalions. It is true that from time to time a report of proceedings in Parliament appeared under the title of “Diurnal Occurrences in Parliament,” but in general Parliament was ever ready to crush at its first appearance any spirit considered by the members to be dangerous to constituted authority. On Sept. 30, 1647, Parliament, at the instigation of Fairfax, passed an ordinance, “for the better regulation of printing,” by which the restrictions were increased and a licenser appointed to whom before printing, all manuscripts had to be presented for approbation.

With the Restoration of Charles II the control of the press was continued by means of the Licensing Act of 1662, passed several times for periods of two years, finally expiring in 1679.[42] This was essentially a republication of the Star Chamber order of 1637, but since the Star Chamber no longer existed the scene was changed from that Court to the Old Bailey. In 1679, at the trial of Henry Carr,[43] indicted for some passages in a weekly paper, the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs declared it criminal at common law to “write on the subject of government, whether in terms of praise or censure, it is not material; for no man has a right to say anything of government.” In 1685, on the accession of James II, the Licensing Act was passed for a period of seven years, and in 1692, (during the reign of William and Mary), it was renewed for one year and the session of the following Parliament. In 1695 the House of Commons refused to again pass it, and in this way the Act expired, never to be renewed, and the press was placed on a footing of equality before the law with all other trades and occupations. And yet, as has been well pointed out by Macaulay,[44] the reasons given by the Parliament for their action did not in any way touch on the question of the rightfulness of a free press, but rather dealt with certain complaints in regard to the provisions of the law and the mode of application. “This paper,” he writes, “completely vindicates the resolution to which the Commons had come. But it proves at the same time that they knew not what they were doing, what a power they were calling into existence. They pointed out concisely, clearly, forcibly, and sometimes with a grave irony which is not unbecoming, the absurdities and iniquities of the statute which was about to expire. But all their objections will be found to relate to matters of detail. On the great question of principle, on the question whether the liberty of unlicensed printing be, on the whole, a blessing or a curse to society, not a word is said. The Licensing Act is condemned, not as a thing essentially evil, but on account of the petty grievances, the exactions, the jobs, the commercial restrictions, the domiciliary visits, which were incidental to it. It is pronounced mischievous because it enables the Company of Stationers to extort money from publishers, because it empowers agents of the government to search houses under the authority of general warrants, because it confines the foreign book trade to the port of London, because it detains packages of books at the Custom House till the pages are mildewed. The Commons complain that the amount of the fee which the licensers may demand is not fixed. They complain that it is made penal in an officer of the Customs to open a box of books from abroad, except in the presence of one of the censors of the press. How, it is very sensibly asked, is the officer to know that there are books in the box until he has opened it?” Such were the arguments which did what Milton’s “Areopagitica” had failed to do. But what we mean to-day by the term, the liberty of the press, is much more than the mere right to print without a previous application to a censor. The position which the press holds in this generation is the result of a slow but steady growth. After the refusal by Parliament to renew the Licensing Act the courts still did their best to prevent the reaping of any benefit from this. Newspaper reporting, and especially the reporting of Parliamentary debates was frowned on by Bench and Parliament alike. In 1722 the House of Commons passed the resolution “That no printer or publisher of any printed newspaper do presume to insert in any such papers any debates or other proceedings of this house or any committee thereof” and when Edward Cave in 1731 began to publish in his “Gentleman’s Magazine” a report of the debates he had to resort to the fiction of a “Senate of Great Lilliput” and even then lived in continual fear of prosecution.

As time passed Parliamentary reporting came to be tacitly recognized, but the law of libel still retained all its terrors. Bentham told the truth when he said “Anything which any man for any reason, chooses to be offended with is libel.” Lord Mansfield in the case of Henry Sampson Woodfall, prosecuted for publishing a seditious libel, enunciated the theory that the work of the jury began and ended with deciding the fact as to whether the accused was or was not responsible for the publication of the matter complained of, the crown, through the court, to decide whether the matter was libellous. For twenty years the question was fought over, and at last in 1791, Fox having changed his views in the matter, introduced his famous bill to amend the law of libel, and in 1792 the bill became law. The importance of this act can hardly be overestimated. After stating that “doubts have risen whether on the trial of an indictment or information for the making and publishing any libel, where an issue or issues are joined between the king and the defendant or defendants, on the plea of not guilty pleaded it be competent to the jury empanelled to try the same to give their verdict upon the whole matter in issue.” It goes on to enact that “the jury may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter in issue, and shall not be required or directed by the court or judge to find the defendant guilty merely in the proof of the publication by such defendant of the paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to it in the indictment or information.” In the same spirit Judge Fitzgerald told a jury[45] “You are the sole judges of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The judges are here to give any help they can; but the jury are the judges of law and fact, and on them rests the whole responsibility.”

Thus the idea of legal restrictions on the press passes away, and the law of libel becomes a law of the press in any case where defamation or false report is charged, and to a jury is committed the task of deciding whether the statement made was justified and proper. As Prof. Dicey aptly puts it,[46] “freedom of discussion is, then, in England, little else than the right to write or say anything which a jury, consisting of twelve shopkeepers, think it expedient should be said or written.... Whether in any particular case a given individual is to be convicted of libel depends wholly on their judgment, and they have to determine the questions of truth, fairness, intention, and the like, which affect the legal character of a published statement.”

But this point of view, which is the position in England, and to a large extent in our own land, has not been reached without a struggle, and it is to that struggle, so far as it was carried on in the American Colonies, that we must now turn out attention.

LIVINGSTON ROWE SCHUYLER.

NEW YORK CITY.

(_To be continued._)

THE AUTOGRAPH

UNPUBLISHED POEM BY THOMAS DUNN ENGLISH

[The MS. was sold in New York recently.]

Some hunt the tiger in his jungle deep,
Some chase the altitudinous giraffe,
Some fight the grizzly bear on mountain steep
And all of these their cup of pleasure quaff.
But fiercer rapture theirs who forward leap
To meet the grim, ferocious Autograph.
A terrible brute! but not so dangerous when
The prudent author keeps him in his—pen.

THE THIRTIETH OF MAY.

[Uncle John in the Cemetery, after the Decoration]

These are not all!
Here by the wall
Is the grave of one who died in the war,
Though her body hadn’t a wound nor scar.
Her hope and heart was broken, when
In a mass o’ men
Her lover fell in a pool of gore
With the flag he bore.
Her life and her love together fled
When he was dead.
Any vi’lets left, girls? Let them fall
Here by the wall.

These are not all!
Go back, and call
The boys that carry the evergreen.
Here is a grave you men hain’t seen.
It’s old man Brown’s. His heart clean broke
’Most as if he was women-folk.
He had five sons—his wife was dead—
Nothin’ could keep ’em to home, he said.
An’ every last one o’ that whole lot
Had to get shot!
Th’ old man hadn’t no grit, no pride—
Jest up and died!
Lay the evergreen softly down
Over the grave of old man Brown.

These are not all!
Let lilies fall
Here on this wee small grave in the shade.
I can remember the day we laid
The Captain’s baby in this green spot.
Cap. he was shot.
An’ some fool neighbor made haste to tell
The Captain’s widder the news, and—well,
Down she went in a faint—jest fell!
And it killed the baby. She lived on,
Health and reason forever gone.
Lay lilies here.
Was that a tear?—
I went to the war myself that year.

Put roses here.
This grave is dear—
She was my sister. The truest heart,
Always ready to do her part.
Gave up _her_ son
When the first gun
Thundered at Sumter! She had but one.
An’ _she_ died, when
(With stronger men)
He starved to death in a prison pen.
(The boy she had fed, and clothed, and kissed,
An’ done for, so that he hardly missed
His father—dead when he was a child.)
She never smiled.
She loved red roses when we was small;
Here let them fall.
We honor the soldiers; but they ain’t all!
MRS. E. M. ADAMS.

MOUND CITY, KANSAS.

ANTIQUITIES OF THE SOUTHWEST AND THEIR PRESERVATION

Those who are studying the history of civilization on the American Continent realize that the subject presents many and intricate problems which can not be solved in this generation. Accordingly, to preserve the material on which this study is based for the use of future generations, is as important as are present investigations.

The title of this paper suggests two classes of material to be considered. The historian will be concerned principally with the remains that mark the advance of the Caucasian race. The remains of the indigenous tribes interest the ethno-archæologist.

To a country so poor in archives as ours is, the possession of numerous historic monuments, landmarks and remains of structures where history has been made is especially fortunate and their preservation doubly important. For a nation to cherish its own history, live in the heroic and righteous acts of its past, is to conserve its vitality and independence.

In the majority of the States we find a moderate degree of enthusiasm for historic sites; sufficient at least to afford them adequate protection and insure their preservation. Some far-seeing societies are alive to the significance of the historic highways that penetrated the American wilderness and are marking them with permanent milestones. A notable example of this is the marking of the “Old Santa Fe Trail” by the people of Kansas—a movement in which Colorado and New Mexico might well join. The determination of Coronado’s line of march has occupied the attention of careful students for many years and we may hope at some future time to see positively determined sites on this historic way permanently marked and recorded.

The significance of our frontier has not been recognized except in social science. Fortunately its advance is well marked. The movement of the military frontier is preserved in monuments and military post buildings throughout the west. Court-house corner stones record the advance of law and order, we may say, the legal frontier—its earliest landmarks in the far west in the form of prominent trees, high bridges, and projecting beams, being pointed out with modest pride by the early inhabitants as memorials of Judge Lynch and the Vigilantes. The progress of education and religion is marked by record stones upon the public edifices devoted to these uses. The importance of all these records should be more generally recognized. Whenever a modern structure is to succeed an antiquated public building, the old record stone should invariably be preserved and reset in some conspicuous place. Future students of history and social sciences will see in these the ancient shore-lines of American social development.

The military-religious frontier of the Spanish-American civilization moved from south to north. Its limits are marked by the quaint old mission churches of New Mexico and California. Some of these buildings are still in the hands of the Church, in use and kept in repair. Some are on the sites of long-abandoned Pueblo Indian villages, at the mercy of the elements and the vandals. In California these splendid old landmarks are being cared for by the organized efforts of thinking people and we need give ourselves no concern as to their preservation. Not so in New Mexico. Here we have ruins of five of the oldest historic structures of which any vestiges remain on the soil of the United States, all dating from the first half of the 17th century; all abandoned yet nobly resisting the elements. These are the ruins of the mission churches at the abandoned pueblos of Pecos in western San Miguel county; Giusewa in the Jemez valley near Perea; Tabira, popularly known as “Gran Quivira” in northeastern Socorro county, and Abo and Cuaray in eastern Valencia county.

A peculiarly interesting class of ruins is that of the pueblo villages that were occupied at the time of the coming of the Spaniards and abandoned during the next century. Archæological work in such sites should yield valuable results by disclosing the first influences of the exotic civilization upon the indigenous tribes. Noteworthy sites of this character are those near Zuñi and a number of the Rio Grande Valley.

The Southwest is rich in historic sites, but in prehistoric remains its wealth is practically limitless. It is with these that we shall deal principally in this paper.

The distribution of the indigenous tribes of America was determined primarily by drainage; that is to say, the food quest was the chief concern of primitive man. First of all, he sought food and water, and we can readily see that, of these two, water was first in importance. Where water was, there food was likely to be. Game frequented water courses. Plant food depended upon moisture. Now in the southwest, water was scarce, consequently no other portion of the United States was so poor in game. Hunting tribes, therefore, shunned its desert wastes. Their frontiers were the Pecos valley in eastern New Mexico, practically the western limit of the buffalo, and the divide running east and west across southern Colorado and Utah, separating the San Juan, south of which lay the arid region, from the splendid hunting ranges on the north which extended from ocean to ocean except where broken by the Utah and Nevada deserts. There was thus a tract of country bounded on the east by the Pecos river, on the north by the San Juan, extending west to the Colorado and south to the Gila in which aridity was the dominant climatic condition. Being poor in game, it was not until comparatively recent times that it was much frequented by nomadic Indians. Comanches, Utes, Navajos and Apaches had no use for this region until it was occupied by some one whom they could dispossess of wealth. Primitive economic systems are not unlike those of civilized men. In both states of culture, wealth is acquired in two ways, namely, by producing it and by dispossessing others of it. Savages and civilians naturally divide into two great classes, the productive and the predatory. It is a far cry from the murderously straightforward method of the Apache to the highly specialized up-to-date commercial system, or even the comparatively direct methods of modern politics, but the difference is merely in technique. Now in the absence of game and of victims for robbery, the first settlers of that arid region were driven to produce their living by agriculture. This could only be successfully done by irrigation. Accordingly lines of migration followed water ways and springs. Moreover, this condition was conducive to a comparatively sedentary life, and this leads to permanent home building.

Now the region under consideration embraces all of New Mexico and Arizona, southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah, and is comprised within four principal drainage areas, viz: the Rio Grande, the San Juan, the Little Colorado, and the Gila, the last three being tributary to the Colorado. Over this area physiographic conditions are quite uniform and the indigenous tribes now inhabiting it likewise; not as to linguistic stock, but in general and specific culture. By indigines I mean the various sedentary tribes generally called Pueblos as distinguished from the intrusive Utes, Navajos and Apaches, which tribes cames in chiefly for predatory reasons after the indigenous tribes had acquired sufficient property to make them desirable prey. This indigenous culture was doubtless composite as to blood and the uniformity developed was the natural result of living for a long period of time under definite uniform environmental conditions. Its primary migration movement was from south to north, but branching in all directions, and the almost countless prehistoric ruins following the water-courses of the southwest are the remains of these early migrations.

The present sedentary Indians of the southwest, called by us Pueblos, are thus the true indigines of that arid region so far as we can judge from existing evidences. All presumption of earlier or different races is purely hypothetical, as yet unsupported by any shadow of evidence. These primitive agriculturists became builders of more or less permanent houses, dependent always upon the permanence of the water supply. The character of their habitations was usually determined by geological environment. The characteristic style of architecture evolved was the multiple-chambered stone structure that we call the _pueblo_. The earliest of these were comparatively small, single-storied dwellings of an indefinite number of rooms rarely exceeding fifty, scattered about over the arable areas. The ruins of these to be found in the southwest are quite uncountable. Later, as predatory neighbors multiplied and the people crowded together for mutual aid the enormous hives of hundreds of cells came into existence. These were often carried to a height of five or six stories. At the same time and for the same reason another style of habitation came into existence, namely, the cliff-dwelling. Its type was always determined by geological conditions. If ledges difficult of access and protected by overhanging cliffs could be found, dwellings were built upon them, not differing structurally from pueblos. If the cliffs presented only perpendicular faces, and were of comparatively soft material, dwellings were excavated in them, single or multiple-chambered, and thus strongly defensive homes established.

Thus we have in the southwest a most fortunate situation for the archæologist. The ruins are of such a character and so situated as to resist the action of the weather, and the climate singularly adapted to the preservation of not only the buildings, but also the more perishable remains. So completely did the indigenous culture overspread the area in question that there is not a waterway of any consequence from the Pecos to the Colorado and from the San Juan to the Gila that is without numerous ruins. They are distributed along not less than a hundred valleys in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah. In a paper and map prepared recently for the use of the Department of the Interior, I have indicated the distribution of the ruins over the four general drainage-areas, the Rio Grande, the San Juan, the Little Colorado, the Gila, and as a tentative scheme have shown how they may be grouped into twenty archæological districts. (This grouping has no ethnological significance.)

The districts are grouped as follows:

I. The Rio Grande Basin:
1. Pajarito Park district.
2. Pecos Pueblo district.
3. Gran Quivira district.
4. Jemez district.
5. Acoma district.

II. The San Juan Basin:
1. Aztec district.
2. Mesa Verde district.
3. Chaco Cañon district.
4. Cañon de Chelly district.
5. Bluff district.

III. The Little Colorado Basin:
1. Tusayan district.
2. Flagstaff district.
3. Holbrook district.
4. Zuñi district.

IV. The Gila Basin:
1. Rio Verde district.
2. San Carlos district.
3. Lower Gila district.
4. Middle Gila district.
5. Upper Gila district.
6. San Francisco River district.

Following is a brief memorandum showing the extent of each district:

I. RIO GRANDE BASIN.

This culture area, lying wholly in New Mexico, embraces the Rio Grande Valley with its tributaries from Ojo Caliente on the north to Socorro on the south and from Acoma on the west to the plains east of the Manzano Mountains.

II. SAN JUAN BASIN.

The ruins of the San Juan Basin consist of both large and small communal houses and true cliff dwellings in great numbers. They are scattered in numerous, irregular groups over the contiguous portions of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. All the ruins of the San Juan and its tributaries have suffered much from destructive collectors.

III. LITTLE COLORADO BASIN.

This extensive region embraced in the valley of the Little Colorado and its tributaries is pre-eminently a region of pueblo ruins, though some cave dwellings are found. It is especially rich in prehistoric pottery. Because of its wealth of relics this region has suffered more than any other from the traffic in prehistoric wares. However, we are fortunate in that Dr. J. Walter Fewkes of the Bureau of American Ethnology has made the districts of the Little Colorado a subject of research for many years. His voluminous reports on this region have put us in possession of a vast amount of information on the archæology and ethnology of the Southwest. His collections from Sikyatki for the National Museum, made in 1895, with the assistance of Mr. F. W. Hodge of the Smithsonian Institution, together with the collections made from the Holbrook district by Doctors Fewkes and Hough, form, probably, the most valuable collection of prehistoric pottery in existence. Another extensive collection of pottery from this region may be seen in the Field Columbian Museum in Chicago.

IV. GILA BASIN.

This is another region that embraces practically every species of prehistoric ruins. It is of vast extent and comprises, besides the valley of the Gila proper, the large valleys of the Salt and Verde rivers. As a seat of prehistoric culture it was one of the most extensive and populous. Many ruins of these three great valleys are on irrigable lands, and, accordingly, have disappeared with the advancement of agriculture.

It would not be possible within the limits set for this paper to describe the ruins of each of these twenty districts, but we may point out briefly the principal features of one district in each drainage area.

1. PAJARITO PARK DISTRICT.

This district lies between the Rio Grande on the east and the Jemez
Mountains on the west, and extends from Ojo Caliente on the north to
Cochiti on the south. In the northern part are the ruins of Homayo,
Houiri (Ho-we-re), and Pose on Ojo Caliente Creek. Ten miles west,
below El Rito, is the large ruin of Sepawi (Se-paw-we). Near the
village of Abiquiu, on the Rio Chama, is the important ruin of Tsiwari
(Tsi-wa-re). These are all pueblo ruins, and not well preserved.

The central portion of the district is the Pajarito Park proper, the
region that has for some years been under withdrawal by the General
Land Office and favorably reported on for a national park, for which
it has many advantages, being of great scenic beauty, accessible, and
one of the richest in the Southwest in well-preserved prehistoric
remains. It contains innumerable cavate houses, a vast number of small
pueblo ruins, and the ruins of the great communal dwellings of Puye,
Otowi, Tsankiwi (Tsan-ke-we), Navakwi (Nav-a-kwe), and Pajarito or
Tchrega. Vandalism has greatly diminished among these ruins since the
park has been under withdrawal.

In the southern part of this district, between the Rito de los
Frijoles and Cochiti, are the ruins of six pueblos, and a considerable
number of cavate houses, the interesting Cueva Pintada (painted cave),
and the famous shrines known as the “Stone Lions of Potrero de las
Vacas and Potrero de los Idolos.”

2. MESA VERDE DISTRICT.

In this district are the finest specimens of true cliff dwellings.
They are very numerous in the cañons of Mesa Verde and along the
Mancos River. Cliff Palace is justly one of the most famous works of
prehistoric man in existence. Numerous pueblo and cliff ruins are
distributed along the McElmo, the Yellowjacket and the Hovenweep. On
the whole, this is one of the most interesting of all prehistoric
districts. A portion of it is under withdrawal by the General Land
Office, pending the creation of the Colorado Cliff Dwellings National
Park. The intelligent interest of the people of Colorado has done much
toward the preservation of these ruins. However, the entire district
has suffered much from vandalism, a majority of the burial mounds
having been destroyed. A national park in this region would be of
great educational value.

3. ZUÑI DISTRICT.

This region is rich in both historic and prehistoric ruins. On Zuñi
Reservation are the ruins of the historic seven cities of Cibola. El
Morro, or Inscription Rock, is an interesting historic monument east
of Zuñi which is under temporary withdrawal by the General Land
Office. The region south of Zuñi to Quemado is known to be full of
ruins, and traders are securing large collections of pottery therefrom
at the present time. The ruins of Zuñi have been thoroughly made known
to us through the work of the Hemenway expedition, under the direction
of the late Frank Hamilton Cushing, assisted by Mr. F. W Hodge. The
collections of this expedition are now in the Peabody Museum at
Harvard University. Other important researches have been made in the
Zuñi district by Doctor Fewkes.

4. RIO VERDE DISTRICT.

On the northern tributaries of the Rio Verde are many cliff ruins. Of
these, Honanki and Palatki are the most important. They are within the
limits of the San Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve. There are
numerous cliff ruins along Oak Creek and Beaver Creek and their
tributaries. Near Camp Verde is the ruin known as “Montezuma Castle,”
and a little farther up Beaver Creek, on the Black Mesa Forest
Reserve, is the interesting Montezuma well. Mr. Mindeleff and Doctor
Fewkes have made important studies and reports on the ruins of this
district.

Fortunately not less than nine-tenths of the prehistoric ruins of the Southwest are on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States; that is, they are on Forest Reserves, on unreserved public lands and on Indian Reservations.

By virtue of Section 441, U. S. Revised Statutes, the care and custody of the public lands is vested in the Secretary of the Interior, and