Litchfield enquirer., 1881-06-30
A Correction.
L1roHFIELD, June 2eth. 1881

LIToHF1ELD, June 26th, 1881. Mr. Editor In the History of Litchfiell County lately published I. find the following in it's first chapter, "Litchfield County was organized in the year 1851, and at that time consisted of the following towns Canaan, Cornwall, Goshen, Harwinton. Kent, New Hartford. New Milford, Salisbury, Sharon, Torrington and Woodbury eleven in number"
 On turning to the printed copy of Colonial. Record, Vol. 10, page 56. find the follow ing. "Bs it enacted, &c, that the townships of LitehfeM, Woodbury, New Milford, Har- winton, New Hartford, Barkhamsted, Hart land, Coleorook, Norfolk. Canaan, Salisbury, Kent, Sharon, Cornwall, Goshen. Torrington and WincAester shall be and remain one entire County"
 Please let us know which of these two his- tories is correct &af
 saii Yours, P a@
 AN ENQUIRER.
 lIhere can be no question of course that the since been transferred to Hartford County Ed. Eng.
 THE HISTORY OF LIroHFlELD COUNTY. .-Ehe new county history by J. w. Lewis, of Phil sdelphia, has been received. It is large work of over TOO pages, excellently printed, prettily bound, and containing a vast amount of historical and biographies; matter. We hear it sharply, and in many respects, justly criticised, yet it is, on the whole, better work than we had expected to see. No one could reasonably expect that strangers te our county and state, coming here for, few months, could add much to existing material for 8 local history. The blunder which ap. pears or, the opening page, and which Is point ed out in letter just received, could hardly have been made by any one at all familiar with our county history. The value of the book consists chiefly in the fact that it is a compilation into one volume of local histories. The work of condensing Kilbourn's history of Litchdeld, Cothren's history of Woodbury, Orcutt's history of Torrington, Boyd's history of Winchester, and many other valuable town histories and unpublished material for histories has been, we should judge, we'll and judi ciously done. We have in this compilation what is most valuable and most curious in allt these works. The chapter on the bar, con- piled from sketches prepared by Judge Board man and Gen Sedgwick, is extremely interest ing, though it cannot hardly be called con- plete, having reference mainly to lawyers of former generations, and emitting most of a recent date.
 The portion most open to criticism is the biographical. Here everything is out of pro- portion. The biographical section seems to have been left to the taste and discretion of the various persons interested. Some of the notices published should have been paid for as advertisements. In the biographies of the bar we fail to find the names of Judge Sanford, Judge Hitchcock, Gov. Andrews, Edward ". Seymour, Donald J. Warner, and others which should be there. On the other hand long, fulsome. plainly autobiographical sketch es appear of lawyers of far less note We hear much criticism of the numerous portraits. This is hardly just. The publishers could not afford to have steel plates and wood cuts made at their own expense. They have de- pended on the liberality of individuals, and of course there are many omissions of faces we should all be glad to see, and which certainly deserve place in the history of the county.-s
 The New York Assembly have appropria- ted $500, 900 for the exterior walls of the New Capitol.-Ez.
 The propriety of cleansing the interior is