from the Marine Committee, if not from a special one, and such is the tradition. There are many theories as to its origin, but none are satisfactory."

Let us now consider the component elements of our flag. First, as to the stripes:

As early as 1704, and probably earlier, the flag of the East India Company of England consisted of thirteen red and white horizontal stripes, with a St. George's cross on a white canton resting on the fourth red stripe. [See plate 35.] It is so depicted in "The Present State of the Universe" (London, 1704) by J. Beaumont, Jr. The number of stripes, however, varied at different times. A book published in the Hague in 1737 entitled La Connoissance des Pavillons ou Bannieres que la Plupart des Nations" represents several flags with red and white horizontal stripes, among them the "Pavillon de Rang, ou de Division d'escadre" (English) which has thirteen red and white stripes with St. George's cross in a white canton.

66

The flag which was unfurled before Washington's headquarters at Cambridge, January 2, 1776, later called the "grand union flag," differed from the one last above mentioned only in substituting the English Union Jack for the cross of St. George in the canton. The colonies had not at this time declared their independence, and while the thirteen red and white stripes symbolized the thirteen colonies, the Union Jack indicated the as yet unbroken allegiance of the colonies to the mother country. Such a flag floated from the mast of the Royal Savage, commanded by Benedict Arnold, on Lake Champlain, in 1776.

From the foregoing it is apparent that red and white stripes in a flag were no novelty in 1776 and 1777, and there is no greater probability of their having been suggested by Washington's coatof-arms than of their having been suggested by flags already in use before the Committee (of which Washington may have been a member) undertook to have a flag made by Mrs. Ross of Philadelphia. Our conclusion in regard to the stripes in our flag is that they are not copied from Washington's coat-of-arms, and that the alternation of red and white stripes in both is only an interesting coincidence.

As to the origin of the stars in our flag:

*

If the stars had been taken from Washington's coat of arms, one would expect them to be red stars on a white field like Washington's. If similarity of design and color is to be the criterion of origin, we might better say that our stars came from the arms of the celebrated William Lord Douglas, or from the arms of George Wier, of Blackwood (registered 1672), or from the arms of several other men who might be named, and whose coats-of-arms were charged with three white mullets on a blue field — the very colors of the stars and field in the canton of our flag. That is the first reason for believing that our stars were not necessarily derived from Washington's arms.

The next reason for believing that they were not derived from the Washington mullets is based on their significance. The stars in our flag represent celestial stars. The flag law of June 14, 1777, expressly says that they represent a "new constellation." Washington himself is quoted as saying:

"We take the star from Heaven; the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her; and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing liberty."

Now, the "stars" in the Washington coat-of-arms were not celestial stars, but mullets, or spur-rowels, as shown by their being pierced in the ancestral coats-of-arms. If Washington understood the heraldry of his own arms and it is to be presumed that he did when he looked at those devices they must have suggested to his mind spur-rowels, not heavenly bodies. At that time heraldry made a distinction between the representations of mullets (spur-rowels) and stars or etoiles (heavenly bodies.) Joseph Edmonson, in his great folio work, entitled "A Complete Body of Heraldry," published in England in 1780, says:

"Mullet is the rowel of a spur, called in French Molette. With us a mullet has five points. In the French heraldry the mullet always has six points. Estoile, or Etoile, is a star with six long waved rays or points."

If it had been the aim of the designers of the flag to represent celestial stars they would probably have suggested six-pointed

Argent, a heart imperially crowned proper, on a chief azure three mullets of the field. [See plate 35.]

stars with wavy points. In this connection, there is an interesting detail in the traditional story of Betsy Ross, which may be mentioned for what it is worth. It runs as follows:

"Col. George Ross and General Washington visited Mrs. Ross and asked her to make the flag. She said I don't know whether I can, but I'll try,' and directly suggested to the gentlemen that the design was wrong, the stars being six-cornered, not five-cornered as they should be. This was altered and other changes made."

If there is any basis for the Betsy Ross tradition, it would indicate that the design originally submitted by Washington contained six-pointed devices (either estoiles or French mullets) and therefore could not have been suggested by Washington's coat-of

arms.

We are not vouchsafed the reason why Mrs. Ross, the seamstress and upholsteress, regarded the six-pointed stars as wrong." All we know is that five-pointed devices were actually adopted and they were interpreted to mean celestial stars. Since then, the use of five-pointed stars to represent heavenly bodies has become common; but at that time it was an heraldic solecism, and we are forced to one of three conclusions: Either (1) the stars were copied from Washington's arms with their original significance, in which case they represent spur-rowels and not heavenly bodies as Washington said in the foregoing quotation; or (2) they were copied from Washington's arms without their original significance as mullets, and ascribed a new meaning, or (3) they were not copied from Washington's arms at all.

It is barely possible that the second alternative above suggested is the true one and that while the significance of our stars differs. from that of the Washington mullets, the form of our stars may have been influenced by some thought of Washington's arms.

Preble remotely hints at a connection between Washington's arms and the Stars and Stripes, but includes the suggestion among those that are "unsatisfactory." With respect to the stars, he argues that they were arrived at by a process of elimination; and this seems reasonable. The colonies in 1776 already had their red and white stripes; but they wanted to supplant the English Union Jack in the canton. What should they substitute? The

rattlesnake, much used on colonial flags, was repulsive. Crosses would have met with religious objections. And in like manner other symbols were probably considered and eliminated until they hit upon stars as not only unobjectionable but also beautifully symbolical of a "new constellation" in the words of the law of June 14, 1777.

To sum up the subject, therefore, we do not feel warranted in claiming that the United States flag is derived from the Washington arms. The most that can reasonably be said is that the heraldic symbols of the one remind us of the other.

PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS.

New York City Records, Hitherto Unpublished, Printed in This Report.

In our last Annual Report we called attention to the pressing necessity for the printing of certain hitherto unpublished manuscript records of the City of New York as a precaution against utter destruction by fire. Another year has elapsed, and the City has not yet taken steps for their publication. In view of the great value of these records, not only to the City, but also to the whole State, the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society has determined to begin the printing of the unpublished proceedings of the Common Council, beginning with the resumption of its sessions in 1784, after the War for Independence, and continuing to print them in instalments in its Annual Reports until the unpublished manuscripts from 1784 to 1831 have been printed, or until the City of New York undertakes, as we believe it should, their systematic publication. The first instalment of these records will, therefore, be found in Appendix J of this Report.

Need for a New York City Archivist.

The official records of the City of New York, involving as they often do land titles of immense value, are of incalculable importance, and both for their bearing on legal matters and for historical reasons, should be in the care of trained hands. About fifteen years ago the late Hon. Andrew H. Green, the Founder of this Society, suggested the creation of an officer to have the title of

the City Remembrancer, a title borrowed from an old-time office in the City of London. His idea was essentially that this officer should be the archivist and historian of the City. It seems to us that this subject is worthy of the attention of the Legislature when next it amends the Charter of the City. The crying need for the systematic care of the City archives is graphically shown in the following article printed in the New York Evening Post Saturday, November 4, 1911:

"Archives are Disappearing.

"Ten years ago Professor Osgood of Columbia University published a painstaking and efficient report on the public records as preserved and neglected by the State and City of New York. Ably assisted by his own students and by Mr. Arnold Van Laer, the Albany Archivist, Professor Osgood was in a position to make a thorough investigation of the matter and the result, as submitted to the Public Archives Commission, is an illuminating statement of the defects of the system then existing.

"The report was so convincing, the need for the prompt adoption of new methods at Albany and New York so clearly shown, that it seemed certain that speedy action would be demanded by an intelligent community and adequate provision made for the preservation of the documents. For they constituted the historic evidence that the Commonwealth had a peculiar past which differentiated New York from the other states of the Union, coloring its history and affecting its development.

"In the face of this report it seems perfectly incredible that the loss suffered in the Albany fire of 1911 was possible. At this present moment, out of twenty-one volumes of Dutch manuscript. as calendared by O'Callaghan in 1865, only two books are in a condition to be consulted. The remaining volumes injured by fire and water are being repaired, to be sure, with all possible care and judgment, but the process is necessarily slow and it will be long before they can again be placed at the service of the student. Moreover, in addition to damage by fire and water, other losses occurred incidentally. Pages are missing from books that at first seemed intact. These are undoubtedly simply misplaced and will eventually be restored to their sequence, but they are not forthcoming for the time being.

"Although the major part of these Albany records have been recorded in some form and the most important have been translated and printed, yet records and translations- many made without any standard of scholarly accuracy are poor substitutes for the originals.