Page:Pacific Historical Review, volume 1, number 1.djvu/121



The significance of the name of Henry Villard is obvious to anyone interested in the construction of the railroads of the Northwest. It is therefor somewhat curious to reflect that the book under review is the first adequate account of the development of the railways with which Mr. Villard was connected. Equally curious is the fact that the author is eastern rather than western in his connections, having taught at Clark University and now being connected with Brown University. The explanation of the second of these anomalies is the easier — the Villard papers at present repose in the Harvard library; this explanation is convincing, even though there have been many heart-burnings because important documents often cling to places remote from the scene of the events which they describe. The explanation of the lack of any earlier adequate consideration of Villard’s railroad work is slightly more difficult. Possibly the availability of the necessary material has been an item of importance. Speaking in more general terms, however, there has until recently been a notable lack of histories of most of our important railroad systems, in spite of their generally recognized significance and of their general interest. This lack seems now on the way to being supplied, particularly because of the various centennial histories that are now appearing, and because of the work of such capable historians as Professor Hedges. Another decade may make possible a good general history of the development of the railroads of the United States.

Mr. Hedges’ book is concerned with the development of railroad transportation in the Northwest during the years 1865 to 1895, and centers in the competition of the cities of Portland, Tacoma and Seattle for supremacy. The work has been done carefully and intelligently, and the account is well balanced. Typographical errors seem to be missing entirely, while mistakes in either fact or inference are remarkably scarce. Here and there occur some slight vaguenesses or phrases which might be questioned—for example, the use of the word “intrigues” (p. 117) to imply an apparently unfavorable judgment which does not seem to be justified, “decadent” (p. 114) as describing New England agriculture, and the strong condemnation (p. 169) of the proposal of the Portland committee. A few omissions seem hard to justify, as for example the failure to mention the Schulenburg vs. Harrison decision of 1874 in discussing the revocation of railroad land grants (p. 68). Such questionable passages are