The following is the committee appointed: Jno. H. Walker and Jas. A. Handy, of Baltimore; William Perkins, of Kent; Thomas Fuller, of Dorchester; and Daniel J. Ross, of Hartford county. A resolution of thanks to the officers of the Convention, the reporters of the morning papers, and authorities for their protection, was adopted. The proceedings were also ordered to be printed in pamphlet form. The Convention, at 3 o'clock adjourned to meet on the second Monday in November, 1853, at Frederick, Md. --From the _Baltimore Sun_, July 27, 28, and 29, 1852. REVIEWS OF BOOKS _The Slaveholding Indians. Volume I: As Slaveholder and Secessionist._ By Annie Heloise Abel, Ph.D. The Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland, 1915. Pp. 394. This is the first of three volumes on the slaveholding Indians planned by the author. Volume II is to treat of the Indians as participants in the Civil War and Volume III on the Indian under Reconstruction. The present volume deals with a phase, as the author says, "of American Civil War history, which has heretofore been almost neglected, or where dealt with, either misunderstood or misinterpreted." It comes as a surprise to most of us that the Indian played a part of sufficient importance within the Union to have the right to have something to say about secession. Yet inconsistently enough he was considered so much a foreigner that both the South and the North, particularly the former, found it expedient to employ diplomacy in approaching him. The South, we are assured, found the attitude of the Indians toward secession of the greatest importance. Yet it was not the Indian owner so much as the Indian country that the Confederacy wanted to be sure of possessing, for Indian Territory occupied a position of strategic importance from both the economic and the military point of view. "The possession of it was absolutely necessary for the political and institutional consolidation of the South. Texas might well think of going her own way and of forming an independent republic once again, when between her and Arkansas lay the immense reservations of the great tribes. They were slave-holding tribes, too; yet were supposed by the United States government to have no interest whatsoever in a sectional conflict that involved the very existence of the 'peculiar institution,'" The above quotation is practically the intent of the book and the author has succeeded in carrying this out in four divisions entitled: I, "The General Situation in the Indian Country, 1830-1860." II, "Indian Territory in Its Relations with Texas and Arkansas." III, "The Confederacy in Negotiation with the Indian Tribes." IV, "The Indian Nations in Alliance with the Confederacy."