Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 November 1885 — Page 3

THE PUBLIC LANDS,

Squandered by the Republican Party on Railroad and Other Corporations. Forfeiture of Unearned Land Grants Demanded by the People, but Refused. Speech of Hon. Strother M. Stockslager, of Indiana, In the House of Representatives, Monday, March 2, 1885, on the Disposition of the Public Lands. Mb. Speaker—For the second time in the bistorv of our country the question of the disposition of the public lands has become a great overshadowing question. That question is now one upon w hich public opinion is greatly absorbed, and which is attracting more attention among thoughtful persons than any other public question which is now being agita'ed. And, Mr. Speaker, when we pass in review the history of the land question and the land systems of the countries of the Old World, its influence upon the patriotism and prosperity of the people and upon civilization, we cannot wonder that the public mind when once aroused upon this great question will brook no delay, but demand that the most effective, rapid, and powerful remedies shall be applied to the change of the policy pursued by this Government for the last twenty years. The people demand that the squandering of our public lands—granting them in large bodies to great corporations—shall cease, and we shall at once return to the true policy of the Government, the granting of the public land without cost, in small quantities, to actual settlers. Mr. Speaker, 1 say it is the second time in the history of our country that this question has loomed up until it is considered one of transcendent importance. As far back as 1849 it was a prominent question in American politics. In that year, on the 24th day of December, the first homestead bill was intro tuced in the House by Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, and a similar bill was introduced in the Senate on the 7th day of January, 1850, by Andrew Johnson. The agitation of the subject continued, and such measures were supported by such able and distinguished legisla ors as Douglas, tendleton, Valla digham, Holman, and Cox. M hen the Republican party met in national convention at Chicago in 1 SCO and put forth its platform, conspicuous among its principles therein enunciated was the following resolution: "That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty: and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the Hous 1 .” Thus recognizing the bill passed by the Democrats in the House as the correct principle upon the sub ject of public lands. It is a pait of the political history of the country that the Republican party was successful in that campaign, electing its President and securing control of Congress. It carried out its pledge to the people by the enactment of a homestead law. This was a beneficent law, and I am trank to confess that if it had been carried out in good faith and the principles contained in it applied for all time to our public domain, it would have been one of the greatest and most far-reaching measures ever enacted by a legislative assembly on earth. Considered' in its effects upon the future of the country, while the republic stands, it was of transcendent importance. The peaceful repose of our country was soon disturbed bv the clash of arms, and the attention of the'great body of our people was so riveted upon that terrible conflict, which was to decide whether or not the Government should live, that the subject of the public lands was lor years little thought of by the people. But alas, sir. the representatives of the people, who had obtained power upon a pledgj to apply the beneficent principles of the homestead law to the public domain, and while the people were lulled into repose by the passage of the law, and their attention drawn away from the subject bv the horrois or civil war, in violat on of their pledges to the people, and in betrayal of a high trust, began a reckless and wholesale system of giving away the public lands that before had never been dreamed of. The American peoi le were amazed when they learned that on th? first day of July, 1862, just iorty-one days after the homestead law was approved, the same Congress, with a reckless disregard of their own action never before witnessed, granted to the Union and Central Pacific laiiroads a magnificent belt of lands forty miles wide, extending from the Missouri river to near the bay of San Francisco, and containing to the Union Pacific 16,115,00 j acres, and to the Central Pacific 15.260,000 acres. Thus the homestead law. by which the millions of acres of unsettled land was pledged to the people as a heritage to the actual settlers—to the men of toll who would cultivate them and make them blossom and bloom and bear fruit—was violated, disregarded and set aside, and a most gigantic system of reckless squandering of the lands inaugurated. This was an entire change in our land system, both in the manner of disposing of the public lands and of the amounts to be given, before that date not a single acre of the public domain was ever granted to a railroad or other corporation. Donations of the public lands had been made from time to time to the States, aggregating in all 31,60(),84'> acres, for the purpose of being disposed of by the States in aid of education, for military roads, for internal improvements and for railroads. But the grants were all to the States. The first grant to a State for railroad purposes was to the State of Illinois in 1850 for the Illinois Central Bailroad, and was of the saved sections, six sections in width on each side of the road. That State, m making the grant to the railroad wisely reserved to herself seven per cent, of the gross earnings of this road, from which she is now deriving nearly a half millibn dollars annually, and which will, for all time to come contribute largely to the payment of the expense of the State Government. The grants which followed, up to 1862, were generally limited to six sections per mile, and in most cases the sale of the land was restricted to actual settlers of 160 acres each at $2.50 per acre. bAs before remarked, until the Republican Jjarty came into power not an acre of the public ands had ever been granted to a railroad or other corporation. The Republican party inaugurated a new policy, and it was kept up by that party until we find in round numbers 200,000,00 i acres of the public domain granted to railroad corporations. It is difficult for the mind to grasp this vast sum. We see a belt eighty miles wide, extending from near Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean, covering some of the best agricultural, pasture, and timber lands in the country, that has been granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Then we see a belt forty miles in width, from the Missouri River to near the Bay of San Francisco, held by the Union and Central Pacific Railroad Companies. Near the Pacific Coast we see a belt extending longitudinally through California, owned by the Western and Southern Pacific Companies, which, as is well known, are owned and controlled by the same parties that own and control the Central Pacific. And we see a belt, forty miles wide, stretching through Kansas into Colorado and New Mexico toward Arizona and old Mexico, that is represented by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company. Then another belt, eighty miles in width, extending across New Mexico and Arizona to near the Pacific, represented by the Atlantic and Pacific Company, being substantially the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Company. These are but a portion of the grand belts of country covered by these enormous grants. The mind is staggered in an effort to contemplaie this imperial estate granted to great corporations. It can only be grasped by comparison. You could carve out of it 1,25u,000 homesteads of 160 acres each. It is equal to 240 States the size of Rhode Island. It is equal in area to seven States like Pennsylvania, with her 45,215 square miles; four and one-half times as large as all the New England States; equal to the thirteen original States, which have 204,001,280 acres. The total area of Great Britain and Ireland is 74,137,600 acres, or but little more than one-third of these grants. There is not among all the enlightened nations of modern Europe one that has an area which equals that of owr railroad kings. The empire of AustroHunaary and the kingdom of Italy, with Switz-

erland and the Netherlands added, have an area of only 250,012,720 acres. The creation by law of this most gigantic land monopoly the world has ever seen must in the very natnie of things be fel; upon our institutions and upon our peo le. The txample of the Federal Government has been followed by some of our States, which have granted millions of acres of their public lands to railroad corporations, or sold them in large bodies to individual . All the barriers have been thrown down, and foreign and domestic capitalists have been reaping a rich harvest for themselves in the purchase of vast areas of land. But so far as the people are concerned, they, through their unworthy representatives, have sown the wind, and they are destined to reap the whirlwind. Land monopoly has been the curse of every country in the world where it has obtained. The people of the Old World have struggled for hut dreds of years in vain and futile attempts to ge. back to a national system of land-hold-ings. The happy and contented Russian villagers who were made slaves by the great landlords have struggled for centuries to get back to the r old system, and although their lot is now much improv ed, it is far from being desirable. England ever since she adopted the old feudal system, upon the invasion by the Normans, has struggled to obtain a rational system of land-holdings. Poor, unhaopy Ireland, with her huge estates, is another familiar example. The only rue sys em is that of a division of the land into small tracts among owners who reside ui on and cultivate it. The whole world’s experience for thousands of years teaches this doctrine, and the nation which has such system to the fullest ex eat has the most prosperous people. In ths propoition in which you reduce the small hold ngs of land, and as a consequence increase the number of large holders and tenant farmers and agri) ulturai laborers, just in that proportion do you degrade the agriculturist and bring poverty and misery upon him. Mr. Probyn, in his work entitled “Systems of land tenure in various countries,” in discussing the land system of Ireland, and in contemplating what an impartial man familiar with this subject in that country would suggest as reretorms, says: “He would probably set aside primogeniture, entails, and strict settlements. On large estates held by corporations he would look with no friendly eye. The ’ dead hand ’ fills him with peculiar horror. He everywhere wishes to see the living hand grasping the living soil.” Mr. Francis A. Walker, in his very recent work entitled “Land and its rent,” in discussing the subject of small holdings and the advantages presented by such a system, says: “The ‘magic of property’ in transmuting the bleak rock into the blooming garden, the barren sand of the seashore into the richest mold, has been told by a hundred travelers and economists since Arthur Young’s day. Ip his tireless activity, ‘from the rising of the larkAo the lodging of the lamb,’ in his unceasing vigilance against every form of waste, in his sympathetic care of the drooping vine, the broken bough, the tender young of the flock and the herd, in his intimate knowledge of the character and capability of ever?,’ field, and of every corner of every field within his narrow domain, in his p ao-ionate devotion to the land which is all his own, which was his father's before him, which wi.l be his son’s after him, the peasant, the small proprietor, holds the secret of an economic virtue which even the power of machinery can scarcely overcome ” Let us see what the effect of this ominously wrong sysrem has been upon the agriculturists of this country. The following table exhibits the number of farms of dill erent sizes held in the United States and Territories in 1870 and 188) respectively: Number of farms in the United States in the census years 18.0 and 1880:

| 1880. 1870. Under three acres... 4,352 6,857 *2,523 Three to ten acres... 131,880 172.021 *32,132 Ten to twenty acres.. 254,749 294,607 *39,858 Twenty to fifty acres 781.474 847,614 *66,140 Total decrease in the number ot small farms in ten years 140,653 Fifty to 100 apres.... 1,032,010 754,221 +278,689 One hundred to 500 acres 1,695,983 565,054 +130,929 Five hundred to 1,000 acres 75,972 15,873 +60,099 From 1,000 acres up... 28,578 3,720 +21,853 Total number of farms'4,ooß,9o7 2,569,985 11,'148,922 Total increase in' the number ofi large farms in ten years| ....... 494,566 ♦Decrease, i Increase. It will be observed that there has been a marked increase in the number of large farms, they having increased, from 1870 to 1880, 494,566, while the small farms have decieased In number 140,653. This speaks volumes, and to the student of history is a solemn warning which fills his heart with sadness for the luture of our country. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not only made great land monopolists of corporations, which, as John Randolph, with bitter sarcasm, yet biting truth, declared, "nave neither souls to damn nor bodies to kick.” But aliens and foreign corporations are gradua ly absorbing vast tracts of our best lands, until we find that already it is but little trouble to set out a list of owners of an aggregate of more than 20,000,000 of acres in tracts ranging from 5,000 to 5,000,000 each. I append a list of a few of such al en holders. 1 doubt not a carefu examination ot the subject wo’ild develop a list much more extensive than the one given below: An English syndicate, No. 3, in Texas.. 3,000,000 The Holland Land Company, New Mexico 4,500,000 Sir Edward Reid, and a syndicate in Florida 2,000,000 English syndicate, in Mississippi 1,800,000 Marquis of Tweedale 1,750,000 Phillips, Marshall & Co., London 1,300,000 German syndicate 1,100,000’ Anglo-American syndicate, Mr. Rogers, President. London 750,000 Bryan H. Evans, ot London, in Miss soippi 700,000 Duke ot Sutherland 425,000 British Land Company, in Kansas. ... 320,000 William Whalley, M. P., Peterboro, England 310,000 Missouri Land Company, Edinburgh, Scotland 300, 000 Robert Tennant, of London 230,000 Dundee Land Company, Scotland 247,000 Lord Dunmore 120,000 Benjam n Newgas, Liverpool 100,000 Lord Houghton, in Florida ' 60,000 Lord Dunraven, in Colorado 60,000 English Land Company, in Florida.... 50,000 English Land Company, in Arkansas.. 50,000 Albert Pell, M. P., Leicestershire, England 10,000 Sir J. L. Kay, Yorkshire, England 5,000 Alexander Grant, of London, in KanEnglish syndicate (represented by Close Brothers), Wisconsin. 110,000 M. Ellerhauser, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in West Virginia 600,000 A Scotch syndicate, in Florida 509,000 A. Boysen, Danish Consul, in Milwaukee 50,000 Missouri Land Company, of Edinburgh, Scotland 165,000 T0ta120,747,000 In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, we have interlopers, foreigners, and others, without any right whatever, squatting upon and fencing up tracts of thousands of acres of the public lands, and driving from them with shotguns the actual settlei s who desire to make a home upon them. So great has this evil become, that this House, at this session, has passed a bi 1 to declare such inclosur. s a nuisance,and providing penalties for thus fencing up the public lands. With all the curses which we have heard heaped upon the land system of England and the land monopoly of England and Wales, it is no comparison to our own. The great landholders of England are mere “pygmies” when compared with our “giants ” In a recent work entitled “Land and Labor in the United States,” by William C. Moody, the author, at page 88 of his book, gives the tollowing as the tize of English land holdings: The follow ng is a list of the whole number of land-owners In England and Wales who are possessed of 50,000 and more acres ot land each, and the actual amount ot their holdings, by which it will be seen that there are but three who own more than 100,000 acres each and no one has an estate that reaches 200,000 acres: SIZE OF ENGLISH LAND HOLDINGS. Names of owners. Acres. Marqui- of Allesbury 55,051 Duke of Beaufort 51,085 Duke of Bedford. 87,507 Earl of Brownlow 57,799 Earl of Carlisle 78,540

Earl of Cawdor 51,538 Duke of Clev 1and106,659 harlot Derby 56,598 Duke < f Devonshirel4B,629 Lord Leconfield 66,101 Lord I.ondes borough 52,655 Earl Lonsdale• 67,950 Duke cf .\ort umberlandlol,iso Dukeot Poitland 55,2’>9 Earlot Fowis 64,0'95 Duke of Rutland 70,039 Lady Willoughby 59.912 Sir W. W Avion 91,032 Earl of Yarborough.... 55,370 The same author adds: But in the United States we have a saw-mak-r, in 1 h ladelphia. with his 4,C(:0,'>00 acres; two butchers in Calitornia w.thsOo.coo and more acres; a cattle raiser in New Mexico with h:s 75 ,000 acres; and numbers of them in Texas whose acres are counted by hundreds of thousands. In the great Northwest the land holdings for agricultural purposes—for grain, gra-s, and vegetables —by hundreds, range to co.ooo acres and upward, occupied by tenants, or machinery, or by both. The whole country, from the Mississippi to the Pacific, is dotted—no, they are net dots —is patched with these huge ho.dings. In comparison with the monopoly of the lands here shown that of the English landlords appears quite insignificant. And yet we are only in the th rd decade of our movement. The lands which have been wantonly wasted by that party in building up giant land monopolies is sufficient to have given every soldier of all our wars now living, and the widows of such as have died, V 0 acres of the public domain. There is now left, after the fourteen years of uninterrupted Republican rule, of agricultural land less than one-fourth of an acre each. The great absorption of the public lands has gone on with such marvelous and startling rapidity that an examination of the “History and Statistics of the Public Domain." just issued from the General Land Office, develops the fact that there remains to-day unoccupied less than 50,0i’0,000 acres of agricultural public lands in the United States, and that includes the irrigable public lands. Talk about giving the 2,000,000 soldiers who served in the last war 160 acres of public land each! Every thinking person knows that the policy of the Republican party has made this wise and benetici nt policy utterly impossible, and the pretense by the members of that party that any such thing is contemplated is, in tho light of the facts, the sheerest nonsense. But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican party bad an opportunity offorded it to repair some of the wrong done the people of the United States in squandering 200,000,000 acres of the public domain upon greedy, grasping railroad corporations. In each grant made a time was fixed within which the roads should be completed. On the 2d day of May, 1882, the time for the completion of the last grant expired. The time for the completion of the Northern Pacific grant of 47,000,000 acres expired on the 4th day of July, 1879. Some of the roads were never constructed at all, and many of them were not constructed within the time, but the Supreme Court having decided that these grants rested from the beginning in the corporations, and on the forfeiture of the grant an act of Congress is necessary to restore the lands to the public domain, th; Departments of the Government treated these grants as still existing, notwithstanding the forfeiture. I present a table from the annual reports of the Secretary of the Interior for 1880-’«i, volume 2, page 318, which presents in detail a large number of these grants at that time. Mr. Stocklager here presented a table exhibiting land grants which have been forfeited by the failure of the corporations to complete their rOads in conformity with law. The totals of this table foot up as follows: Total number of acres embraced in these grant 5128,472,161.13 Length in miles of railroads as definitely located 12,080.00 Number of miles of railroad completed before the expiration of grants 3,151.28 The speaker then continued : Such was the condition of these grants when the Forty-seventh Congress assembled in December, 1882. The Republican party had a majority in that body. Already the murmurlugs of discontent at thesa immense grants and the demand for the forfeiture of every acre which had not been earned by the building of the roads according to contract were heard throughout the land. Early in January bills were Introduced In the House by Judge Holman, Judge Cobb, and others, declaring these lands forfeited. The Congress was in session more than twelve months during its existence, and yet not a single acre of that land was forfeited. , That Congress adjourned #nd nothing was done toward forfeiting these lands which honestly belonged to the people but the great corporations were left in quiet possession of nearly a hundred million acres of land, to which they had no shadow of a light. With that narty the voice of the great corporations of monopoly is greater than the will of the people It leans for support upon the thousands of corporations which its legislation has built up and fostered at the expense of the people. But the sublimity of cheek necessary to promulgate the following resolution, which appears in the platform of that party, adopted at Chicago last year, can only lie found in the ranks of that party. Here it is: "The public lands are a heritage of the people of the L nited States, and should be reserved as far as 1 ossible for small holdings of actual settlers. We are opposed to the acquisition of large tracts of these lands by corporations or individuals, especially when such holdings are in the hands of non-resident aliens, and will endeavor to obtain such legislation as will tend to correct this evil. We demand of Congress the speedy forfeitute of all land grants which have lapsed by reason of non-compliance with acts of incorporation in all cases where there has been no attempt in good faith to perform the conditions of such grants." Mr. Speaker, it am not incorrectly informed, on the very day, and near the very hour that platform was adopted the members of that party upon this floor were filibustering against a bill to forfeit one of these unearned grants. And it is a notorious fact that nearly all the opposition to the forfeitures came from that side of the House. Again, although some of the bills passed this House daily in the first session of this Congress, and many of them have been in the Senate for a time, yet with one or two exceptions none of them have passed that body. And, Mr. Speaker, the policy of that party Is indicated not only by its action in Congress, but the whole country has just been startled to learn that one of the last acts of the retiring Secretary of the Interior has been to engage his whole force for days, and perhaps weeks, in issuing patents to the lands granted to wnat is known as the “Backbone land grant,” in Louisiana, amounting to about 700,000 acres. Bills were pending in Congress at the time for its forfeiture, and an earnest protest, signed by Senator Van Wyck, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Holman, Mr. Lewis, and Air. Henley against issuing such patents. But the protest was unheeded, and the grant has been confirmed by letters natent. But, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record of the Democratic party upon this subje t. I have already shown that the first homestead bill ever introduced In this House was Introduced by Stephen A. Douglas, and the first bill ever introduced in the Senate was drawn by Andrew Johnson, both of whom were at that time leaders in the Democra' ic party. I have abo seen that the Democratic party passed through this House the first homestead bill which was ever passed in it. I have also seen that the Democratic party during the nearly sixty years of its power In the Government never granted an acre of the public lands to a corporation. Hence, when that party surrendered power March 4, 1 61, it did so with a homestead bill passed the previous Congress and our magnificent public domain carefully husbanded. The uniform policy of that party has been to acquire and husband the nubile lands for the benefit of the Government and the people. The people having decided at the last election that the Republican party was unworthy, and electei a large majority of Democrats to this body.it be. amethe duty of that party to respond to the voice of the people and 1 estore to the public domain such of the public lands as were not earned and beyond the reach of forfeiture to the Government, to attempt, in some degree at least, to right the great wrong done them by the Republican party in violation of it» pledges, and which it refused to right in the last Congress. How well that party has adhered to its antecedents and kept faith with the people a glance at our calendar will show. I desire to call the intention of this House and the country to what has been done. On the 21st day of January, 1884, the following resolution, introduced by Judge Holman, passed this House: He.solveil, That in the judgment of this House all the public lands heretofore granted to States and corporations to aid in the construction of railroads, so far as the same are now subject to forfiture by reason of the nonfulfillment of the conditions on which the grants

were made, ought to be declared forfeited to the United States and restored to the public domain. tii-xii'red. That it is of tbe highest vubLc interest that the laws touching the public lands should be so framed and administere;! as to ultimately secure freehold therein to the grt atest number ot citizens; and to that end all laws facilitating speculation in the public lauds or authorizing or permitting the entry or purchase thereof in large bodies ought to l>e lepealed, and all of the public lands adapted to agriculture (subject to bounty giants and those in aid of education) oncht to be reserved for the benefit ot actual and bona tide settlers, and disposed of under the provisions of the homestead laws only. henolvetl, That the Committee on the lublic Lands Is hereby instructed to report to the House bills to carry into effect the views expressed in the foregoing resolutions: that said committee shall be authorized to report such bills at anv time, subject only to revenue and appropriation bills; and the same shall in like oroer be entitled to consideration. This resolution gave the Committee on Public Lands a right to report at any time, and distinct y committed the House to the repeal of the pre-emption and timber-culture laws and the disposal of the public lands to settlers under the homestead laws only. As to the work done by this House during this Congress I refer to the following lists of bids passed by the House, and of others 1 snorted favorably by the Committee on lublic Lauds, but not yet passed: 1 ANDS FORFEITED TO THE UNITED STATES, Bill passed the House declaring certain lands heretofore granted to the following raihoads iorteited to the United States: The Gulf and Ship Island Railroad.... 65'2,860 Tuscaloosa and Mobile Railroad 688,800 Coosa and Tennessee Railroad. 140,060 Savannah and Albany Railroad (estimated) 900,000 New Orleans and State Line Ballroad.. 120,800 Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad.. 1,057,024 Texas Pacific Rai1r0ad..14,309,760 Oregon Central Railroad 1,130,880 Calitornia and Orrgon Railroad 2,126,526 Atlantic and Pacific Rai1r0ad..49,294,883 Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad 85,654 T0ta171.307,134 LANDS FORFEITED TO THE UNITED STATES. Bills pending in the House declaring certain lands heretofore granted to the following railroads forfeited to tho United States: Acres. New Orleans. Baton Rouge and Vicksburg Railroad 903,218 Oregon and California Railroad 3,701,7(10 Marquette, Houghton and Ontonagon Railroad 627,200 Ontonagon and Brule River Railroad. 232,848 Marouette and State Line Railroad... 540,848 Northern Pacific Railroad (estimated). 48,215,040 Southern Pacific Railroad 7,500,000 11. R. 7238, to restore all lands held in Indemnity limits for railroad and wagon-road companies, and for other purposes, over 100,000,000 161,720.914 Of all these none but the grant to the Texas Pacific, 14,309,760, have passed the Senate and become law. tome others passed the Senate at the last session of the Forty-eighth Congress, but with such amendments as prevented them from receiving the sanction of the House. The Committee on Public Lands has alsW favorably reported a bill prohibiting the holding ot lands by aliens. The report made by Judge Oates, ot Alabama, is a very able document and presents very cogent ieasons tor the enactment of Ihe bill into a law. It should be passed, and thus prevent the accumulation of lands in the hands of citizens of other governments who have no interest in our own except to speculate upon lands which should be given to actual settlers. We have thus seen that while the Democratic party has been true to the people, and as between the people and the great corporations -aggregated cap tai and monopoly—they have stood by the people, the Republican party has violated its promises, betrayed the people into the hands of the corporations, and then refused the partial relief which was still in reach and to which they were so justly entitled. And now to make their record still more sinuous they hypociitically declare that they are in favor of the forfeiture of these lands. It is not true, and I warn the people that that party will never forfeit, these lands. Their professions in that direction are a mere hollow pretense and a sham. And now in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I desire to again say that I deem these measures of vast and lar-rcaching consequence. No man can study the land systems qf the different countries of the world, as 1 have done within the last week, and observe how uniformly for hundreds of years the monopoly of land, the ownership of tho land by the few, has brought poverty, mis Cry, and distress, and how the opposite, or the division of the land and its ownership by the many, has liad the opposite effect, without feeling deeply the importance of our action upon this subject. Notwithstanding the solemn warnings ot history, we are rushing with headlong speed Into the very system which has proven so baleful In other countries. Let us take warning and reverse om course ere it is too late.

The Road to Prosperity.

Imagine a village of say ICO voters. Imagine two of these villagers to make such a proposition as this: “We are desirous, fellow-citizens, of seeing yon more prosperous, and to that end propose this plan: Give us the privilege of collecting a tax of five cents a day from eveiy one in the village. No one will feel the tax much, for even to a man with a wife and eight children it will only come to the paltry sum of, fifty cents a day. Yet this slight tax will give our village two rich citizens who can afford to spend money. We will at once begin to live in commensurate style. We will enlarge our houses and improve eur grounds, set up carriages, hire sen ants, give parties, and buy much more freely at the stores. This will make trade brisk, and cause, a greater demand for agricultural productions, which will enable the neighboring farmers to make a greater demand for store goods and the labor of mechanics. Thus shill we all become prosperous.”— Henry George.

The Depew Story.

Of all modes of writing history that of reporting it between speeches and drinks at a grand banquet is the most grotesque. Chauncey M. Depew is, moreover, a man well along in life, and was well in manhood twenty years ago. He must have known something of the history of the Johnson administration from his own knowledge of current events; he could easily have refreshed his information by going to proper sources if he desired. Instead of taking either course he gives a random report of General Grant's talk to him four years ago, about events fifteen or sixteen years before, and presents it to the public as gratuitous history. There is probably a grain of truth underlying this narration, but it is like a grain of sand under an eyelid, a body tremendously out of its true place and asssuming a degree of importance wholly disproportionate to its true merits. — Springfield Republican,

By a Large Majority.

It may be that the people of Nev> Mexico, who regard Dorsey as a great man, cannot understand the President’s action. But the great majority of the people of this country will agree with the President that any man who will appoint Stephen W. Dorsey to a position of trust is not fit to sit on the bench.— New York Star.

The Charge Against Andrew Johnson.

So far, certainly the very grave accusation against Andrew Johnson, brought after General Grant’s death, on his alleged authority, has certainly not been proved. Mr. Depew and Colonel Grant owe it to themselves, if, as they assert, they have documents to confirm it, to produce these at once.— New York Herald,

ON ETERNITY’S SHORE.

Sudden Death of Gen. George H McClellan at His Residence Near Orange. He Is Called in the M’ent Hours, Dissolution Being Preceded by Acute Agony. George Biiuton McClellan, formerly Major General of the United States armies and commander of the Army of the Potomac, and more lately Governor of New Jersey, died early on the morning of the 29th ult., at his home in St. Clond, on 0.-ange Mountain, near Orange, N. J. THE DEATH-BED SCENE. Gen. McClellan returned home from an extended trip through the West on Sept 17, apparently in the best of health. On Oct. 17, while he was pissivg through the Hoboken ferry-house, he felt < ueverb pain near his heart. The pain w’s temporary, but the General consulted Dr. Seward, his physician. Dr. Seward concluded that he had neuralgia of the heart, and by his advice the Geneial gave up an extended trip with his wife to Old Point Comfort. Va., to attend a meeting of the Governors of the soldiers* home at that place. During the past week he walked and drove about Orange ns usual, but about 11 o’clock on Wednesday evening, an hour after ho had retired to his bedroom, he was seized with another and very severe attack of pain in the region of the heart. Mrs. McClellan sent for Dr. Seward, and under his treatment the pain became, less severe. At 2 o clock in tho morning, however, the pain returned with increased severity. Dr. Seward administered morphine, hypodermically, but without avail. The General became unconscious, and remained so until he died at 2:15 o’clock in the morning. Mrs. McClellan, Miss May McClellan, and Dr. Seward were in the room. The only other member of the General’s family, George Brin* ton McClellan, Jr., is a senior in Princeton College, and could not be reached in time. Gen. McClellan’s mother is still alive, in her 85th year. She is an invalid, and in the beginning of the summer she was not expected to live until autumn. During the summer she has been at Drifton, Pa. The General returned from visiting her there just two weeks before his death.

PUBLIC SYMPATHY.

The following executive order was issued at Washington by order of the President: Ab a mark of public respect to the memory of this distinguished soldier and citizen, whose military anility and civic virtues have shed luster upon the history of his country, it is ordered by the President that the national flag be displayed at halt-mast upon all the buildings of the executive departments in this city until after his funeral rhall have taken place. Secretary of War Endicott issued the following general order: With profound regret the Secretary of War announces to the army the death of Gen. George B McClellan, formerly major-general commanding the armies of the United States. The name and fame of this distinguished soldier and citizen are known and honored throughout the republic. As the organizer of the Army of the Potomac he made it capable of accomplishing great deeds. The lessons he gave it were never forgotten, and the spirit with which he animated it continued through all its eventful history. Subsequently as Its leader he rendered great services to his country. His pure and noble character, his unselfish devotion, and the duty he performed in the hour of peril will cause his memory ever to be cherished with pride by the people of the United States. A special from Washington to the Chicago Tribune says: The death of Gen. McClellan was a great prisehefe. It was not known that he had MTm ihd be written to-day Tendering hi iff the position on the Civil-Service Commission to be made vacant by the retirement of Mr. Eaton. Gen. McClellan had already refused the Russian mission, and it hardly was exacted that he would accept a Civil-Service Commissldherehtp, tjja. duties of which are so onerons and thß salary of which is so small. But the President, in his endeavor to induce prominent Democrats to accept this place, had determined to offer it to Gen. McClellan. A New York dispatch says: As soon as the news of Gen. McClellan's death spread throughout the city great sorrow was expressed at the sad event. The flags on public buildings were placed at half-mast. The Grand Army Post called a meeting to express their sorrow and offer a body-guard for the remains. CONDOLENCE FROM THE PRESIDENT. To Mrs. George B. McClellan, Orange, N. J.; I am shocked by the news of your husband’s death, and, while I know how futile are all human efforts to console, I must assure you of my deep sympathy in your great grief and express to you my own sense of affliction at the loss of so good a friend. Grover Cleveland. CONDOLENCE FROM GOV. ABBET. To Mrs. George B. McClellan, West Orange, N. J.: My Dear Madam: I have just learned with profound sorrow of the death of vour distinguished husband. I speak not only tor myself but for all the people of New Jersey, who will join In the universal mourning for the loss of a pure and upright citizen and a great soldier. I wish most earnestly to take such proper official action as will do honor to his memory. I have directed Adjutant General William 8. Stryker to ascertain yonr wishes, so that the action of the Executive may be In full sympathy with your own feelings. I have the honor to be, very respectfully yours, Leon Abbett. BIOGRAPHICAL. George Brlnton McClellan was born at Philadelphia in 1826. His father was a distinguished physician, a graduate of Yale College, and founder of Jefferson College. At West Point McClellan had the reputation of being an Industrious but not brilliant student; but he graduated second In general rank in the largest class that had ever left the academy, and first in the class on engineering. His military rank when he left West Point In 1846 was second lieutenant of engineers. He served as such in the Mexican war. In the spring of 1856 he was appointed to a captaincy In the First Cavalry Regiment. The same year he was one of a commission composed of three officers sent by the United States Government to make observations In the Crimean war. He resigned his commission in the army in 1857 and became Chief Engineer of the Illinois Central Railroad. In 1861 he re-entered the army. As commander of the Federal forces in West Virginia he gained the victories of Rich Mountain and Cheat River. A few days after the battle of Bull Run he was appointed commander of the army at Washing on. In November, 1861, he assumed command of the armies of the United States. His victory at Fair Oaks, May 81, 1862, was so lowed bv actions at Mechanicsville, Savage’s Station, White Oak Swamp, Gaines’ Mill, and Malvern Hill. The result of the campaign was the retreat of his forces and the abandonment of his plan to take Richmond. Gen. Pope was appointed to supersede Gen. McClellan, who was, however* readied to the command of the army September 2, 1862. His victory at Antietum was gained about a fortnight after this date. In the following November he was relieved of command. In 1864 he was nominated for the Presidency on the Democratic ticket, and received a popular vote of 1,800,000. In 1877 McClellan was elected Governor of the State of New Jersey, a position which he tilled until 1881. Since that time he had lived in New York City. His learning and abilities as an engineer gave him leading and remunerative business in his profession.