ests as a museum of natural history, for instance, does to the great city park in which it stands. The general principle underlying the protection and conservation of the National Parks is simple, but its application is difficult. It is quite conceivable that beauty may sometimes have to give way to a pressing public need. But the tendency has been to encroach, not to save cities, but to save money. Commercializing the people's property has been insidious and persistent. There is sound sense in a dictum of Mr. Payne, the present Secretary of the Interior, and a stanch supporter of the National Parks, that "it is not safe to encroach upon the National Parks for any commercial purpose." This is emphatically a case where safety lies on the conservative side. We should not take any risks; injury once done cannot be undone. These reservations, few in number and small in comparison with the total Governmental reserves, form a link between the wild life of America and our day; they preserve noble and beautiful examples of natural marvels; they show American wild animals living natural lives in their natural habitats. It is our duty to protect them faithfully for our own enjoyment, and to pass them on to generations which would otherwise not have remaining examples of all this. The present immediate danger to the National Parks is twofold-the attempt to encroach on them for water power and the attempt to divert their streams and lakes to irrigation. The situation has recently been debated in The Outlook in letters from Mr. W. J. Hannah, of Big Timber, Montana, and Mr. J. Horace McFarland, the President of the American Civic Association, on the one hand, and Senator Walsh, of Montana, on the other. It is evident from this correspondence that, however plausible the argument may be that it is possible to use the Parks for commercial purposes and still leave them beautiful, it would involve grave danger to their special and peculiar character. Mr. McFarland says of the situation in the Yellowstone, where it is proposed to establish an irrigation reservoir for the benefit of a comparatively few farmers, the issue is plain: "It is either completely to give up the Yellowstone as a spectacle or completely to retain it as a spectacle. It cannot be handled on a compromise basis and still have it worth while as a Park." It is proposed to introduce several irrigation bills threatening the Yellowstone Park at the next session of Congress. A friend of the National Parks who is thoroughly in touch with the situation writes us as to this: "The nature of any private privilege granted in any National Park, whether it be for power or irrigation or mining obsidian for teething rings, makes not a straw's difference. The first one granted, whether by the Water Power Commission or by Congress, will open the door, and complete commercialization of all the National parks inevitably will follow in time." It is pointed out that it is quite possible to take the water for irrigation outside the Park, for, as Secretary Payne says, "The water doesn't stay in "The water doesn't stay in the parks." The effort is to get free reservoir sites inside the Park and to avoid expense generally. In reply, the advocates of preserving the Parks intact say that there are alternatives, in many cases better alternatives except in respect to the cost of reservoir sites; that there is no instance where modern engineering cannot solve the problem outside of National Park boundaries; and that, if the end to be gained is not worth the cost of purchasing sites and erecting possibly more expensive works, it certainly is not worth the destruction of the special character of our National Parks. It will be seen that this is the business of the people themselves. Their remedy is simple. Let them instruct their Representatives in Congress. The second new danger to the Parks, that from the greed for water power, arises from the fact that Congress, in passing the Federal Water Power Act, did not, as it should have done, exempt the National Parks from the operation of the Act. The law was passed in a hurry, was supposed to have been killed by the President's "pocket veto," but, under a precedent found when the friends of the measure were bringing pressure to bear, was signed. Secretary Payne averted the danger for a time. when he obtained an agreement by the Water Power Commission that it would grant no leases in the National Parks until Congress should have an opportunity to amend the law. That this should be done by Congress admits of no question. If it is not done by the present Congress, the new Administration after March 4 should certainly prove its interest in the large and vital subject of conservation by acting promptly. As the law now stands, the Water Power Commission, which consists of the Secretaries of War, the Interior, and Agriculture, may grant half-century leases in National Parks and Monuments to build dams, power-houses, transmission lines, and other structures, necessary or convenient, without other advertisement than what it thinks is are lanc sens If wit to t that necessary to bring out other and perhaps more advantageous bids. It is true that a Secretary of the Interior who care for the National Parks as Secretary Payne does might balk any effort to persuade the Water Power Commission to grant injurious privileges. But when we remember what happened at the time of the Ballinger controversy it is clear that we must not depend upon it as a certainty that the public interest will always take precedence over pri vate interests. As the other members of the Water Power Commission might perhaps be influenced by the fact that not it was created for the express purpose of stimulating the use of water power, the Secretary of the Interior would be the single natural and legal defender of the National Parks. The responsibility for our National Parks and the power over them ought not to be in one man's hands, nor in three men's hands; they should retur to the open forum of Congress, where they have rested for half a century and where they belong. SHALL WE SCRAP THE 66 TINE-TENTHS of wisdom," Mr. Roosevelt used to say, "con. sists in being wise in time." It is easy to see now that if all Americans who are convinced that we should unite with our allies in any terms that we make with Germany had put themselves strongly behind the Lodge reservations we should in all likelihood have by this time established a technical as well as an actual state of peace. It is, or ought to be, equally clear now that the Treaty with the Lodge reservations has practically lost what chance it had of adoption. It has been intimated that President Wilson may now submit the Treaty again to the Senate with the Lodge reservations, thus attempting to put his opponents in a hole. If he does so, the Senate probably will not accept the Lodge reservations and the Treaty. Since those reservations were framed, a great deal has happened. The American people have made it evident that they are not only opposed to the Covenant of the League of Nations, but also to the participation of America in the contentions and broils over European bounda ries. If America had been allowed to sign the Treaty with the exception of the Covenant eighteen months ago, it is very possible that many of those quar rels might have been prevented. Now the quarrels have been entered into and saill T C mat Lea tute Co to t nito Join Pea hi SULL ern of E ara past the stage of prevention. Engd and France and Italy are in dission over the terms of the Treaty. we should sign the Treaty now even hout the Covenant, we should have take sides in those dissensions, and t the American people are plainly willing to do. There are two possible courses open: One is to accept the Treaty of Verlles with new reservations elimting the United States from the ague of Nations as at present constied, and also—and this is equally, if more, important-declaring that the ited States declines to commit itself the maintenance of the Treaty's terorial arrangements. We should thus n with our allies in the Treaty of ace and would leave to the party ich by a great popular mandate asmes the administration of the Govment on March 4 the duty and right adjusting our international relations. The other method is to adopt a decPation promulgating a state of peace, rresponding to the declaration proilgating a state of war, and announcat the same time that the United ates will hold Germany accountable - a defeated enemy and will concede to r no rights except such as are later be determined upon. The first course is intrinsically simer, and, if accepted by the other signaries, including Germany, to the Treaty Versailles, would automatically esblish the peace as a victorious peace d place the United States in a position enforcing all the terms upon Gerany excepting those which are strictly rritorial. The delay of the last two ars, however, has allowed opposition such a course to grow, and we think is very doubtful whether any such an can be carried out. Moreover, Mr. arding is committed to the other urse. He has said that as soon as a solution establishing a state of peace submitted to him he will sign it. Whether such a resolution would be quivalent to separating ourselves enrely from our allies or not will deend upon its terms. Such a resolution ould not necessarily put us in a posion of aloofness. Indeed, it might rengthen us with our allies. There is absolutely no doubt that ne United States is as devoted as ever the principles for which the Nation eally fought. American soldiers did ot fight to settle the boundaries of the Banat of Temesvar, or the access of Poland to the sea, or any other Euroean territorial question. The United States fought because Germany, by her isregard of the law of war and of the 66 laws of nations, by her menace to all The best thing that the United States First, to see that the countries which Germany most immediately injured, France and Belgium, shall not be menaced soon again, and for that reason the United States should concede to both France and Belgium those physical both France and Belgium those physical barriers of defense which are necessary for their safety. The Franco-AngloAmerican Treaty now pigeonholed in the Senate may not be necessary if France is permitted to have a proper frontier. If she is not permitted to have a proper frontier as a consequence of Mr. Wilson's objections, then that Treaty ought to be revived and signed with reservations eliminating all reference to the Covenant of the League of Nations in it. Second, to insist that Germany make proper reparation to France and Belgium and other countries she has injured and render up her criminals to justice. Third, to keep everlastingly at the task of defining and applying international law, not only by conventions, treaties, and the most practicable form of international courts of law, but also by the announcement of policies devoted to that end. SOME CHRISTMAS AD- I CHRISTMAS, 1920 CHOOSE CAREFULLY YOUR GIFTS FOR D CHILDREN should not allow our children to keep any creature in confinement. Avoid giving books on hunting, robbery, murder, or war. We do not wish to accustom the child mind to thoughts of agony and death. Choose toys that are interesting and instructive, which will be enjoyed by the average child and leave no destruc tive impression on the mind. A child's mind receives and holds early impres sions-those transmitted in play; this has been proven by the kindergarten method of child training. M. L. H., Humane Education Press Bureau. Boston, Massachusetts. II Do not give your child any water to drink on Christmas day. People have been frequently drowned in water. By no means give your child a plant for Christmas. Some plants grow into trees, and on some trees people have been hanged. Above all, do not let your child warm itself beside the grate where the stockings are hung. They burned Joan of Arc at the stake, and, unfortunately, made use of fire in so doing. The only appropriate Christmas gifts for your child are a pair of blinders, a gag, and a nice piece of sanitary cotton to stuff in its ears. Better yet, follow Mark Twain's advice concerning boys, and put your child in a barrel and feed it through the bung until it reaches the age of twenty-one. Seriously, the advice which has been sent to us by the Humane Education Press Bureau seems to involve one of the most curious misunderstandings of child psychology which we have seen in a long time. A child's mind develops as the mind of the race developed. It possesses in little all the primitive instincts of the race. The way to develop these instincts for the good of the child and the good of society is not to ignore these instincts, but to sublimate them in useful and effective action. A boy who has been given a gun, taught its dangers, trained in its accurate use, is not the boy who will run amuck. A child who is given a pet and taught to care for it is not the child who O not choose such gifts as whips, will develop a streak of cruelty. Books swords, or guns. We do not wish to encourage our children to play at games of whipping, fighting, or any cruel sport. Do not give a live animal, kitten or puppy, to a small child who will not know better than to hurt it. Do not give to children a caged bird -since Liberty is our watchword, we should be chosen with judgment and common sense, but if you are to eliminate all stories which deal with robberies we should have to blue-pencil the story of the good Samaritan. It is strange that any one needs to be told that, if a child is brought forward step by step to an understanding of life, the bitter disillusionment and moral disaster which sometimes follow the sugar-coated pill method of education will have little chance to supervene. THE GREEN HYPHEN T HE news from England of the burning of the Liverpool docks by Sinn Fein sympathizers, of the murders of policemen and Government officers in Ireland, and of the tragic reprisals which have followed, has found a disconcerting echo on our own shores. Supported by the Hearst papers, encouraged by professional propagandists, Irish sentiment in the United States has manifested itself in an emphatically unAmerican way. Prior to America's entrance into the war some of our German-American citizens incurred public condemnation by putting the interests of their fatherland above the interests of their adopted country. We called them hyphenated Americans. This same opprobrious epithet deservedly belongs to Irish-Americans who are to-day quite as disregardful of the interests of America as any of those half-citizens who applauded the sinking of the Lusitania. Two weeks ago The Outlook told briefly the story of an assault upon a New York theater by Sinn Fein fanatics. who objected to the British flag in the decorations displayed for Armistice. week. On Thanksgiving Day certain other Irish-Americans, coming out of St. Patrick's Cathedral, where a mass had been celebrated for the repose of the soul of Terence MacSwiney, discovered the British flag flying with the flags of America and France from the second-story windows of the Union Club. Disregarding the appeal of venerable Monsignor Lavelle, the Sinn Feiners attempted to battle their way into the Union Club and destroy the British flag. A pitched battle followed between the members of the club and the mob, which was at last driven off by the police after the mob had riddled windows of the club with bricks and stones and several people had been injured. When we remember that just a short while ago the funeral of MacSwiney was permitted to traverse the streets of London, guarded and protected by the English police, and that the marchers in this funeral were even permitted to carry the banners of the so-called Irish Republic, the intolerance and fanaticism of our Irish-Americans is made doubly obvious. Irish-Americans are seeking to embroil America and Great Britain. It is no new effort that they are making, but the continuation of a policy which goes back for decades in the history of AngloAmerican relationship. Regarding these Irish-Americans as Irishmen, and not as Americans, it can be said that they are doing more to hurt their cause in this country than they know. America has shown a generous interest in Irish problems, and has felt a whole-hearted hope that a solution might ultimately be found for the historic unhappiness of Ireland. But whatever of sympathy remains is being rapidly alienated by the conduct of Irish sympthizers within our own gates. They are in danger of the same public reaction which the extravagant sympathizers with Citizen Genet met when, during Washington's Administration, he violated the hospitality of America on behalf of a foreign Power. Ed pa the N December 20, 1620, a shiph Sa of one hundred and two in of grants from England landed dog the shore of Cape Cod, one group amphe hundreds of adventurers who were i that decade landing on the Americ coast, one group among millions immigrants who since that time crossed the sea seeking on this cat nent to better their fortunes for the selves and their descendants. ner the my 23 the The entire Anglo-Saxon people they celebrating this fall the landing of th Epi particular group of immigrants th thei centuries after it occurred. Why? W Thi were the Pilgrim Fathers? sult bon ba br те From the fourth century, when th Roman Empire under Constant made Christianity the religion of t state, to the close of the sixteen T century, the Church as established law demanded uniformity in belief, i pr worship, and in ecclesiastical organize tion. Any violation of this uniformi CL the governments under the control the Roman Catholic Church punish as the most heinous of crimes. T Protestant Reformation weakened b did not destroy their assumption th all loyal citizens must think the s thoughts and employ the same rita in religion, but that assumption passen over into the Lutheran Church i Germany and the Established Chur in England. Henry VIII, when b broke away from Rome, had no idea d gre introducing liberty into his Kingdom; and Queen Elizabeth was equally res lute in her endeavor to prevent no conformity whether by Protestants or Roman Catholics. The Puritans, while in a minority, appeared to repudiate this doctrine of religious uniformity Lord Rosebery, himself a Churchman delivering the address at the setting of the statue of Oliver Cromwell in London, defined the distinctive charac teristic of the great Puritan leader in the following terms: "He [Oliver Cromwell] was a practical mystic, the most formidable and terrible of all combinations; the man who combined the inspiration, apparently derived, and in my judgment really derived, from close communion with the supernatural and the celestial-the man who has that inspiration associated with the energy of a mighty man of actionsuch a man as that lives in communion with a Sinai of his own, and he pears to come down to this world below ரை ad A ed with no less than the terror and decrees of the Almighty himself." ward Dowden in one of his essays s this fundamental characteristic of Puritans even more clearly. He 5: "To discover the dominant idea Puritanism we must look beyond ma to something common to every se of the great contention. And loubtedly the unvarying central elent was this, that the relation between invisible spirit of man and the isible spirit of God was immediate her than mediate." If the spirit of the Puritans had been catholic as their philosophy, when y got the control of government y would not have forbidden the iscopalians to use their liturgy and ir sacraments in public worship. is, however, they did, with what ret Sir John Evelyn's diary affords e pathetic illustrations. One quota1 must here suffice: 3 Dec. (1654). Advent Sunday. here being no office at the church, ut extemporie prayers after the Presyterian way, for now all formes were rohibited, and most of the preachers vere usurpers, I seldome went to Church solemn feasts, but either upon vent to London, where some of the orthodox sequestred Divines did prirately use the Common Prayer, adninister sacraments, etc. or else I cur'd one to officiate in my house; vherefore, on the 10th, Dr. Richard Owen, the sequester'd minister of Eltham, preach'd to my family in my ibrary, and gave us the holy com nunion. pro It was at this time that a sect arose England destined to exert a proind influence on the future history of great continent, but in its birth witht numbers, wealth, or social influce. Its insignificance preserved it om serious persecution. Its courage mmended it as a useful partner to rtain capitalists in London who were ady to risk their money but not themves in a trading venture to the New orld. A bargain was struck between e courageous adventurers and the utious capitalists; the Mayflower was rchased, or chartered, and equipped, Id the Brownists, so somewhat conmptuously named for one of their aders, became "the Pilgrims." So far I know, they were the first organed band of Christian believers who nied that uniformity either of belief, orship, church order, or religious activy was desirable. They believed in libty because they believed that, to quote ord Rosebery, inspiration derived om close communion with the supertural and the celestial is possible to ery man; that no bishop or arch bishop, priest or minister, saint or angel, terrestrial or celestial, is necessary to bring the love and power of God into the heart of his child. Their motto might well have been, "The kingdom of heaven is within you ;" their faith might well have found full expression in the phrase, "Every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." They believed in the Church, but not in a hierarchy. They believed that the grace of God is like the sun which shines on the evil and the good, and like the rain which is sent to the just and to the unjust. They believed that sacraments and liturgies, confessions and absolutions, priests and ministers, are not necessary to attain this communion. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me,' they regarded as addressed to the man of toil as to the scholar, to the sinner in the street as to the saint in the cloister. They were not heretics. In general they believed the theology expressed in the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds. But they objected to any creed borrowed from the past and imposed upon the present. Ordinarily their churches had no creed. Each applicant for admission stated his faith in his own phraseology, and the church, after hearing him, decided whether he was sufficiently in accord with the Church to be desirable as a member. This would not give uniformity of belief. But they did not desire uniformity of belief. Like Paul, they knew only in fragments and prophesied only in fragments. They were bound together not by agreement in opinion but by agreement in the spirit and purpose of their common life. They believed in the Church; but they believed that the secret of its power was not in traditions inherited from the past, but in a supernatural power dwelling in the Church in the present. The power of a single child of God they thought transcended definition; how much more the combined power of a group of God's children strengthened and guided by his spirit to do his work! This we hold and affirm," said their Pastor Robinson, "that a company consisting though but of two or three, separated from the world. and gathered into the name of Christ by a covenant made to walk in all the ways of God known unto them, is a Church, and so hath the whole power of Christ." 66 They retained both baptism and the Lord's Supper, but both as symbols. The first was an ancient form of consecration; the second, an ancient form of fellowship. They believed in a real presence, not in the bread and wine but in the hearts of those who partook of the bread and wine; they regarded the Supper as a delightful memorial of their Master's love and gave it the homely name of communion; and for an altar signifying a priestly sacrifice they substituted a communion table. If they had lived in our time, they would not have objected to General Booth's dropping both sacraments from the Salvation Army when he found them not promoting but hindering his rescue work. Nor would they have objected to his adoption of a militant form of organization for the militant work which he had undertaken. They regarded the Bible not as the Word of God, but as a word of God, one of the many words of One who was always present and always speaking Iwith his children. In some of their churches they would not allow the Bible a permanent place in the pulpit, lest the worship of a book should take the place of reverence for a living Person. They believed in civil government. But they did not believe that just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. They derive their powers from God. No laws were good laws but those which were the embodiment of his will. Only by his permission did kings rule. And any government which was not purposed to be in accordance with his will was an unjust government. Before they sailed from England they drew up-though they did not sign it till they reached these shores-what is, I believe, the first Constitution of a free commonwealth ever framed in human history. Its brevity might well commend it to constitution-makers in our own time. It is, the reader will observe, a covenant not merely of the Pilgrims with one another, but also with their God. In this respect it resembles the Constitution of the Hebrew Commonwealth. It was as follows: In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our King and country a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia do, by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid, and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof, we have hereunder subscribed our names. Cape Cod, 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord With their landing at Plymouth this imperfect sketch of the Pilgrims must come to a close. It is sufficient to indicate that they paid a great price to escape from that uniformity in creed, ritual, and ecclesiastical organization which some of their descendants in our time seem eager to re-establish. The object of this article is not to eulogi criticise, or defend the Pilgrim Fathers but only to define and interpret their fundamental principles, leaving the reader to exercise his own judgment upon these principles and upon their possible application to some of the re ligious and political problems of on THREE CENTURIES AGO A chosen race of pious Grundys, They thanked their God on Sundays When providential chills and fevers Erased the Redskin unbelievers. Remorseless Greek and Hebrew scholars, They wore uncompromising collars And gloomy headgear, cloaks, and T breeches. -Arthur Guiterman in "Life." NO-DAY, three hundred years after the landing of the Mayflower at Plymouth, we think of a Pilgrim Father of 1620 as a slightly stooped old fellow with a hatchet face, dressed in short coat and breeches of dull brown homespun, worsted hose, and square-toed shoes with big silver buckles. His straight black hair drops almost to his shoulders. His distrustful eyes looking out from under the drooping brim of the high beaver hat make us conscious of all the bad things we have ever done. We suppose that the Pilgrim Fathers never laughed, and that not only did they keep within the strait and narrow path, they did not even wish to get out of it. But among this group of pious ancestors there were a few who would not be Pilgrimized. In spite of the rules and regulations prohibiting almost everything which we think pleasant, they managed to preserve their individuality and to find some excitement in life. BY P. G. PERRIN was a reluctance to pay his debts and the other was a fondness for punching his fellow Pilgrim Fathers' noses. Doty was born in London in 1599. He came over on the Mayflower, as a proper ancestor should have done. He is listed in the passengers as a servant in the family of Stephen Hopkins, but he must soon have bought his freedom or worked out his term of years, for soon he is a landowner and trader. He was the fortieth man to sign the Mayflower Compact, which the little band drew up while they were in Provincetown Harbor to provide for some sort of law and order among them. He took part in the first battle with the Indians, December 8, 1620, while the settlers were feeling their way along Cape Cod to the permanent settlement at Plymouth. Twenty Englishmen put to flight about thirty savages. They had been on this side of the Atlantic only about two weeks, but had in that short time acquired the American habit of souvenir hunting, for they picked up the arrows that had been fired at them and sent them "into England." In these historic "firsts" Doty was one among a number, but he has one claim to fame which is almost his own. He has the honor of being one of the principals in the first duel fought in America, with Edward Leicester, June 18, 1621. We should like to know what that duel was about, whether it was over a drinking debt, or over some finer point of honor, or for the hand of some blue-eyed Priscilla. At any rate, he fought a duel among that group of Pilgrim Fathers. Take, for instance, Edward Dotey, Doty, Dote, Doughty, Dowty, Dowtey, or Doten-a man could spell his name as many ways as he pleased then. Edward Doty may have worn a wide white collar on Sunday. His hair may have been combed in straight lines to his shoulders. But if it was, it must have been rumpled pretty frequently, for Doty treated lightly "the peece of by peece of our soveraign Lord the King." As is the case with some of us today, Doty's life story is told chiefly in the court records. We do not find that he was ever drunk, as some of his neighbors were, or that he violated any of the many petty regulations of personal conduct the magistrates laid down. He had two principal weaknesses: one The records say that he redeemed himself in the eyes of his fellow-citizens by "changing from youthful folly;" but, though we find him after a dozen years well established, a landholder in the colony, he still shows the old impetuosity. Money matters trouble him throughout his career. When some one isn't suing him for debt, he is suing some one else. January 3, 1633, the Court ordered him to settle with William Bennett, who claimed that he had not LYMAN ABBOTT. paid the three pounds of beaver agreed upon for a flitch of bacon. At the same time Doty sued another man for pay ment for a bill of lumber. At the April first session of the court this same William Bennett sued Doty for slander, alleging that he had called him rogue-perhaps while they were settling the beaver-bacon deal. He was fined fifty shillings, thirty togo to the King and twenty to the injured Bennett. Doty was not by any means always found guilty. His neighbors seem to have found him a handy person upon whom to hang suspicion. When John Washburne accused him of taking a hog "wrongfully," the "jewry" a quitted him. About a year later he was in court again, with Josias Cooke, charged with breaking the peace of our soveraign L. the K." They were each fined six shillings eightpence, and because Ed ward had given Josias a bloody nose, he had to pay three shillings fourpence additional" for the same." January 6, 1635, Doty married Fayth Clark, who was twenty years younger than he, and who outlived him twenty years, marrying again. But though be was now a man of some property-in 1634 he had paid three shillings more tax than John Alden-and a married man besides, he did not turn over a new leaf. He must have been what New Eng landers to-day would call a "good trader," a little "sharp," for people seem to have been reluctant to pay him until ordered by the Court. We know that he was rather more than thrifty in managing his affairs, for a man appren ticed to him for ten years complained that he was not receiving all the clothes that his contract called for. The Court cut his term of service five years. But Doty prospered, made many land deals and now went on bail for other people in addition to providing his own secu rity on occasion. The whole business of the court ses sion of February 1, 1642, was devoted to three cases of Doty's. The court, which was legislature, court, and coun cil ine B low St De the se C fir bo hi no |