Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 November 1892 — LITTLE WATEREO STOCK THERE [ARTICLE]

LITTLE WATEREO STOCK THERE

One of the Numerous Good Pninse About Railroad* In England. The English railroads were far more expensive to build than ours. They had to pay for the land—and land is valuable in England; and the cost of depots, etc., was much higher than here, where all the laid is given free and often a bonus in the way of city and county bonds for the location of machine shops, etc. When it is considered that the English roads cost so much more aqd get none of this assistance, one would think that it was far more difficult to pay dividends on the stock there than here, but the New Orleans <Times-Demo-crat says this does not seem to be the case. A parliamentary inquiry conducted by the British Labor Commission into the English railroads, and more particularly into the wages paid employes, Shows a condition of affairs highly creditable to them. The amount of money invested in railroads is $4,485,00.0,000, and authorized capital $5,000,000,000. It js here that the defects in our railroad system become apparent. The laws creating the British railroads keep their capital down very close to the actual cost; whereas, here the stock is watered time and time again, until often the capital of the company represents barely 10 per cent, of the money expended. “Water” is the reason why so many American railroads default in the payment of their dividends. The gross receipts per annum of the English roads are £BO,000,000; but the working expenses reduce this by more than one-half, and the net earnings amount to £43,000,000 annually. The English roads, therefore, pay average dividends of 5 per cent. (4.8 per cent., to be exact), which is far above what our roads do. Another point inquired into by the commission—and it was the matter most investigated by it—was in regard to wages. The evidence submitted showed that the number of men employed by the English companies is in the neighborhood of 350,000. This is a much larger number in proportion to mileage than are employed in this country, and proves that the British roads are better equipped—one of the reasons why there are fewer accidents there than here. It was also shows that the men had fully shared in the prosperity of the companies, and that their pay bad increased more rapidly in the last eight years than the gross receipts, the improvement in wages being 21 per cent., and in railroad business only 12 per cent., and that there had been at the same time -a material reduction in the hours of labor. Weboast a great deal about our railroads, and we undoubtedly lead the world in mileage; but it would be well to remember some of the facts brought out by this British commission: That we have too many accidents and kill too many people; that we do not pay as good dividends as the English lines, which cost a great deal more, and that American employes do not share in the increased prosperity of the roads as fully as they do in England.

For Peace or War. The growth of international arbitration has not been as rapid as the friends of peace were at one time led to hope. In spite of arguments and practical examples the United States and Great Britain are almost alone in their adhesion to the principle. The other nations still hold to the stern and tested policy of getting what they can by individual bargaining, and fighting when they cannot agree. The advantages of arbitration are easy to be understood. To say nothing of avoiding the slaughter of good, productive citizens, the financial advantages are almost wholly on the side of peace. Napoleon was a master hand at robbery and believed fully in the maxim of living off the enemy, yet in spite of all the money raised by taxation in France and the countries appropriated by France the debt had increased from 714,000,000 francs to 1,272,000,000 francs at, the end of the fifteen years of Napoleon’s government. This was, to be sure, a small increase, considering the fighting that was done, but when even the ruthless policy of Napoleon could not make war at the expense of the conquered no other may hope to be successful. Germany’ came nearest to it by collecting 5.000,000,000 francs of France and taking Alsace and Lorraine as the prize of the war of 1870, but the cost of the war in money and the still greater expense it has entailed in the enormous military establishment necessary to hold the provinces have made it a dear bargain. The expenses of a war are great. In most cases the return is nothing. The combatants become exhausted, and after spending their blood and money come to a more or less friendly agreement and settle their differences on terms that might have been had without fighting. When the United States and Great Britain came near going to war over the Alabama claims the whole amount in dispute was $100,000,000. If they had fought the whole amount in dispute would have been spent in military preparations before a blow was struck and both sides would have spent ten times that amount a year till the war closed. Arbitration in that case saved hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of lives to each side, and the result was honorable if not satisfactory to both sides. It is true that England felt sore that the award went against ber —not for the $15,500,000, for she would have willingly spent a hundred times that amount in defending her dignity, but for the fact that she was declared to be in the wrong. But whatever disappointment was felt both countries have found the proceedings so sensible that they are settling the Behring Sea dispute in the same manner. Other countries, however, show no intention of laying aside the sword for the legal argument. It may. do well enough for kindred countries or in cases where the disparity of power is so great as to make war ridiculous. But between blood enemies it finds no favor. Germany faces her armies toward the French and Russian frontiers; Austria-Hungary watches for the Cossack camp fires; France snarls at England's stay in Egypt, and all the powers are ready to tty at cne another’s throats as soon as some

accident shall start a fight in any quarter. There is no thought of arbitration, and apparently nothing to arbitrate. , Possibly after the next great conflict the other powers will see the advantages of settling their differences peaceably, but it does not look as though they would come to that mind until they have experienced again the full disadvantages of war.

. French Peasant*. M. Betham Edwards, in her “France of To-day,” speaks again and again of the benefits accruing from the ownership of land by the peasantry. As a native Of England, shesedms to have been peculiarly impressed by this feature of across the Channel. She writes with special enthusiasm of Osse, “a remote Pyrenean village admirably adapted for the study of rural life.” “A beautiful spirit of humanity,” she declares, “a delicacy, rare among'the most polished societies, characterize these frugal softs and daughters of the soil.” As sordidness carried to the pitch of brutality is often imputed to the French peasant, let me relate an incident that occurred hereabouts not long before my visit. The land is minutely divided, many possessing a cottage and field only. One of these small owners was suddenly ruined by the falling of a rock; his cottage, cow and pig were destroyed. Without saying a word, his neighbors, like himself in very humble circumstances, made up a purse of five hundred francs, a large sum with such doners, and, too delicateminded to offer the gift themselves, deputed an outsider to do it anonymously. Another instance in point came to my knowledge. This was of a young woman servant, who, during the illness of her employers, refused to accept wages. “You will pay me same other time,” said the girl to her mistress. “I am sure you can ill afford to give me the* money now.” Peasant property, and rural life generally, here presented to me some wholly new features. One of these is the ai-most entire self-sufficingness of very small holdings, their owners neither buying nor selling, making their little crops and stock almost completely supply their needs. On a field dr two enough flax Is grown with which to spin linen for home use, enough wheat and Indian corn for the year’s bread-making, maize being mixed with wheaten flour. Again, pigs and poultry are reared for daily consumption. Expenditure is reduced to the minimum. Coffee is a luxury seldom indulged in. A few drink home-grown wine, but all are large milk drinkers. The poorest is a good customer of the dairy farmer.

A Sad Want of Originality. The Crown Prince of Denmark furnishes a curious example of the nomenclature practiced by royal families. The rule in Turkey was that Amurath should succeed Amuratb, and in England that George should succeed George or Henry should follow Henry. In Denmark, however, the rule has long been that Frederick should succeed Christian and Christian Frederick. This is confusing enough to write intelligibly, but it is still worse in practice. Nearly every Danish king is named Christian or Frederick, and so the difficulty of distinguishing between them is great. The present king is Christian the Ninth. He was the son of Frederick the Seventh. He will be succeeded by Frederick the Eighth, who in turn will be followed by Christian the Tenth. The mere fact that the present Crown Prince is known as Frederick, and that if he died before his father he would be succeeded in his rights by his son, Prince Christian, is nothing at all. All the sons of the royal house of Denmark are Christian and Frederick, and therefore, from the point of view of mere nomenclature, it does not matter which of them succeeds to the crown. The next two lots in crowned heads in Copenhagen would be labeled Frederick the Eighth and , Christian the Tenth, under any circumstances. In many princely German families every male who is born is christened by the hereditary name. The result of this peculiar custom may be illustrated by the fact that in the reigning house of Reuss the Henrys run up to Henry the Sixty-ninth.

Rich Without Money. Many a man is rich without money. Many a man is poor with money. Thousands of men with nothing in their pockets, and thousands without even a pocket are rich. A man born with a good, sound constitution, a good stomach, a good heart and good limbs, and a pretty good head-piece, is rich. Good bones are better than gold, tough muscles are better than silver, and nerves that flash Are and carry energy to every function are better than houses and lands. It is better than a landed estate to nave a right kind of father and mother. Good breeds and bad breeds exist among men as really as among herds and horses. Education way do much to check the evil tendencies or to develop good ones, but it is a good thing to inherit the right proportion of faculties to start with. The man is rich who has a good disposition, who is naturally kind, patient, cheerful, hopeful, and who has a flavor of wit and fun in his composition. The hardest thing to get on with in this life is a man’s own self. A cross, selfish fellow, a despondent and complaining fellow, a timid and careburdened man—these are all born deformed on the inside. They do not limp, but their thoughts sometimes do.—Selected. There is a pretty general consensus of opinion that Lady Cavendish has been making a mountain out of a molehill in her pictures of English fashionable life. When a woman starts in to find fault as a public vice deplorer it may generally be expected that unless she has a hard-headed, practical editor to blue pencil her gush she will be apt to flop over. Emmet Dalton may be getting better, but it is hardly probable he will fully recover his health—in Coffeyville.