Although historians have described the role of Stephen Girard in the founding of the second Bank of the United States simply as that of a heavy investor in its stock, careful examination of the Girard papers and other recently discovered documents shows the usual account to be entirely inadequate. Actually Girard was one of the moving spirits of the Bank from the time of its inception in the minds of a small group of American financiers until the period of its mismanagement in 1818. Then, as chairman of the stockholders, he was largely influential in effecting the replacement of the reckless and incompetent Jones leadership with the sounder administrations of Langdon Cheves and Nicholas Biddle. Girard was a most important influence in the Bank's early history. He purchased a large amount of stock, contributed to the working out of the mechanics of operation, aided in obtaining specie from Baring Brothers & Company, London, helped determine the form and content of the charter, did yeoman service in the political battle preceding its founding, and struggled mightily, although in vain, to prevent the Bank's becoming a political football in an orgy of speculation.

From the earliest period the communities of the Latin tribes of central Italy and of the remaining Italiots made use of a few slaves as herdsmen, field hands, and probably as domestic servants to meet the simple demands of their small-farm life. No doubt these slaves were employed also in the household weaving of wearing apparel, in the fabrication of those offensive and defensive weapons needed in the wars with their neighbors, and in the production of the tools required for the still simple operations characteristic of Italian farming of that time. Enslavement appears in the Laws of the Twelve Tables, which can safely be dated about 450 B.C. There is no mention of slaves in the two early treaties between Rome and Carthage, as given by Polybius. Livy tells us very briefly of the imposition of a five per cent tax upon manumissions, which was passed in 357 B.C. if we may trust the statement and accept his dating of it. The picture of early Roman slavery as gained from these few primary data, and from literary sources even less trustworthy, is that of a simple agricultural use of a slave population whose numbers were relatively small. This would hold true down to about 352 B.C.

Present-day economic historians display an uneasy feeling that medieval gilds have enjoyed much more attention than they deserve. Professor Heckscher compares them unfavorably with later gilds, Professor Gras grudges them credit for anything save the keeping of records to mislead historians, and the authors of a recent textbook almost apologize for pausing to describe them. In general, this reaction from former attitudes reflects a shift of interest from the interpretation of economic policy to other problems that now appear more fundamental. We have a quantity of information about gild policies, but it leaves us uncertain whether or not the gilds were of any real importance in the history of economic development.

Pierre Prévost lived from 1751 to 1839. In 1780 he was invited by Frederick the Great to go to Berlin as a professor of young boys at the Academy of Nobles. He became a member of the Academy of Sciences at Berlin, and his entry dissertation dealt with political economy. In 1784 Prévost returned to Geneva, where he became professor of literature at the university of that city. In 1793 he was a member of the National Assembly at Geneva, but retired after four months. In 1794 he was imprisoned for twenty days by a revolutionary tribunal. Immediately upon his release he became professor of physics and philosophy at the University of Geneva, a chair which he exchanged in 1810 for that of general physics. With Marc-Auguste Pictet, Prévost was the codiscoverer of the moving equilibrium of temperature.

The early commercial relations between the United States and South America in the years preceding the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine have until quite recently received but scant attention. This neglect may in part be attributed to the historian's concern with the political implications of the revolutionary movements in Spanish. America and their bearing upon our foreign policies. In part, also, it may be ascribed to the paucity of materials (either published or in manuscript); information on commercial affairs transmitted by American special agents and consuls in the ports of Latin America was generally fragmentary and incomplete. Yet even a tardy examination of our trade relations with Chile in the years 1817-1820 may be of value, especially since the materials available for this study present a picture of the volume, the variety, and the difficulties of our trade that is unique in the annals of our early relations with South America.