Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOURTEEN
(From the Brooklyn Eagle.)
THE MORGAN FUNERAL.
Dignified and Unostentatious, Unlike
Some of the Past.
The funeral of Senator John T.
Morgan, at least that portion of it
in the charge of the government,
was different in many respects from
old ceremonies of this character. It
was quiet, dignified, and unostenta
tious, just as the solemn occasion
required, and in no way suggestive
of the extravagant, boisterous expe
dition which created so many scan
dals in the past.
There was a time when the death
of a Senator or a Representative
meant a high old time for a dozen
or so statesmen. There was a rush
on the part of Senators, Represen
tatives, their friends, and other
hangers-on about the Capitol to be
put on the honorary committee to
escort the remains from the Capitol
to the place of interment. Every
body knew that a special train
would be chartered, that there would
be wines and cigars without limit
and the best things 10 eat that the
market could afford. There would
be no expense to the members of
the party, for the government would
foot all bills. This custom was bad
ly abused, and stories of carousals
on these trips of a most scandalous
nature brought them into disrepute
and forced a change of policy.
It is doubtful if the cost to the
government of burying the late Sen
ator Morgan will be one half as
large as the funeral bills of an ob
scure representative fifteen or twen
ty years ago. The Sergeant-at-
Arms of the Senate had charge of
the Morgan obsequies. A special
train was chartered to take the
Washington party to Selma, Ala.
The escort consisted of the Vice
President, five Senators, - nine Rep
resentatives, and six attaches. The
actual arrangements were in the
hands of an experienced Washington
undertaker, and there was no hag
gling over prices. The parly trav
eled in comfort, but without d splay
of undue luxury, and every detail
of the funeral was carried out with
due regaid to the proprieties «.f the
occasion.
What Nelson Dingley’s Funeral
Cost.
In the old days it was nothing for
the bills for the funeral of a states
man to run up to $5,030. It cost a
trifle less than that to peiform the
last rites over the remains of Rep
resentative Nelson Dingley, of
Maine. The biggest item of cost
was for transpoitation. the railroads
getting about $3,500. Four profes
sional singers were paid S6O for
musical services in this city before
Ihe body was shipped to Maine. The
bill of the undertaker was $560,
itimized as follows:
Copper-lined casket, extension
and end handles $350.00
Solid silver plate and en-
graving 25.00
Laying out and drestrng re-
mains " 16.00
Embalming 50.60
Oak cas •. brass b mid. 11 te
and handh* n -03
Use of hearse, two trips .. .. 12.00
Use of wagon for conveying
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
* flowers from hotel to Capitol
and to depot 3.00
Flowers for desk in House .. 10.00
Personal services and assist-
ance in Washington and ac
companying remains to Lew
iston 35.00
Crape and ribbon for draping
chair in committee room and
funeral car 15.00
♦
Total $560.00
The funeral party was a large
one, requiring a reservation of twen
ty-seven rooms at the Elm House
at Lewiston, at $2.50 per room. Flor
al pieces and loose flowers cost
$125, and other incidentals were as
follows:
Ten hacks from train to hotel
and house SIO.OO
Hearse, train to city hall .. .. 5.00
Hearse, city hall to huuse .. . 5.00
Three carriages for committee. 12.0 J
Twelve carriages at funeral, at
$4 48.00
Cemetery charge, opening
grave 10.00
Quartet at funeral .. . , .. . 8.00
Services of director and assist-
ants 25.00
Hearse at funeral 5.00
Wreath for house dour 10.00
Four pairs of gloves at $1.50. 6.00
Six pairs of gloves at 50 cts. . 3.00
Express on baggage 3.00
One carriage, bag, and baggage
to train 4.00
Cigars costing $49 were purchased
on.the trip to Texas to bury Repre
sentative J. W. Cranford in the
same year of the Dingley obsequies.
“Commissary supplies” called fur
an expenditure of $250.
Garfield Funeral Expenses Still
Unpaid.
In this connection it is interest
ing to note that the government has
never paid the funeral expenses of
President James A. Garfield. The
bill has been standing for more
than twenty-five years, but Uncle
Sam has made no effort to cancel
the obligation.
The Garfield ceremonies were
placed in the hands of a well-known
Washington undertaker. He fur
nished everything from the coffin
down to white kid gloves for the
pallbearers. At the proper time he
submitted his bill. Accustomed as
they were to liberal expenditures
for the interment of the nation's
statesmen, the lawmakers gasped
when they saw the size of this bill,
she authorities refused to settle and
demanded that the figures be scaled
down.
The undertaker was a man of set
notions and informed the officials
that he had no bargain prices and
was strictly one price. He declined
to reduce his statement by a single
penny. A deadlock ensued which
has not been broken to this day. The
account is still on the books of the
undertaker.
This man, by the way, is just now
in very bad health and his death
would occasion no surprise. He has
been too proud to push payment of
the claim, but his heirs will be ex
pected to reopen the matter, when
the country will be treated to some
interesting expert evidence on the
cost of funerals. —Washington Post.
FOR THE SAKE OF DEMOCRA
CY BRING REAL MEN TO
THE FRONT.
To the Editor of The Georgian:
I note that ‘‘The Georgian stands
for Atlanta’s owning its own gas
and electric light plants, as it now
owns its waterworks,” and that,
with some mental reservation as to
when the city shall assume owner
ship, The Georgian s?ems to favor
city ownership of the street railways.
May a Jeffersonian Democrat con
clude from these statements that
there is really one newspaper in the
great South that honestly and fear
lessly advocates the Democratic prin
ciple of public ownership of public
utilities, as distinguished from the
Republican idea of private monopo
ly of all public franchises and rights
of-way?
While I am well aware that th'e
rank and file of the Democracy of
the South still believe in the funda
mental principles of Democracy, I
have observed that the rank and file
have but little more influence than
the negroes in shaping affairs polit
ical. And from rather close observa
tion of editorial utterances and
statements from great Southern Dem
ocratic leaders like Senator Bailey,
of Texas, and Hon. John Sharp Wil
liams, of Mississippi, I had about
reached the conclusion that the solid
South was iirevocably committed
“politically” to the Republican doc
trine of corporaitionism, pure and
simple—absolute corporation owner
ship of the people’s highways, wa
terways, streets, alleys, market
places, pipe line ways, telephone
and telegraph franchises, etc. I
have feared that, and won
dered if The Memphis Com
mercial-Appeal fairly voiced the sen
timents of the leading Southern
Demociatie politicians in stating edi
torially that, “We are utterly op
posed to state and municipal owner
ship of every public utility that can
be managed by private corpora
t ions. ’ ’
With this sort of stuff passing un
challenged as Southern Democratic
sentiment and with sections of the
South upholding the doctrine of
protective tariff, the thought forces
itself on the mind, Has the South
entirely lost sight of and depart'd
from the fundamental principles of
philosophic Democracy? Is it given
over body and soul to the doctrine
of Republican commercialism and
co’.porate greed? Have we nothing
left but a hypocritical attitude on
the negro question to distinguish
Southern Democracy from the Re
publican corporation thievery and
stock jobbery of Wall street, New
York?
No honest Democrat can for one
moment confound the Democratic
principle of public ownership of pub
lic utilities with the Socialistic doc
trine of collective ownership or con
trol of private property, or with the
Republican idea of private monopoly
of everything in sight, public and
private.
Talk about Socialism! Why, Hon.
John Sharp Williams’ fear of “ne
gro domination,” “centralization at
Washington,” and “Mexicanization
of this republic” is truly touching!
Doesn’t he know that Democratic
communities owned and operated
their own public highways and other
public utilities hundreds and per
haps thousands of years before the
word Socialism was coined, and be
fore s.ich a thing as a private cor
p ration for pecuniary profit was
ever dreamed of by highly imagina-i
live and readily approachable legis j
lators of the modern brand? Does:
he think he can scare honest, think-'
ing Democrats, South, North, East.:
or West, into treachery to their own
piinciples and into support of the
political schemes of the Harrimans,
the Hills and the Morgans by this
sort of cheap-john talk? Even that
colossal specimen of impenetrable
egotism and adamantine assurance,
Bailey, has been recently forced to
a thorough realization of the fact
that all Democrats are not either ras
cals or fools—even in Texas.
Merciful Father, give us men!
And, for the sake of the Democracy
of the fathers, bring the real men of
the South to the front in the try
ing times for Democratic principle!
Mr. Bryan may be slightly in er
ror in advocating Federal ownership
of “a few trunk lines” of railroad,
but he is eternally right in his advo
, cacy of state (not Federal) owner
ship of these public utilities within
the boundaries of the respective
states. Public ownership of all pub
lic utilities, as distinguished from
piiva'e monopoly thereof. is the true,
the democratic ai d th 1 only 1 g’cal
and constitutional sohvion of th?
railrt ad problem and its related prob
lems. But state and municipal own
e ship (not Federal) is public own
e ship.
Mr. W lliams ai d Mr. Bailey we 1
know that if the cities of G-orrii
owned their own waterworks, electric
pants, telephones, etc., and if th'*
s ate of Georgia owned and operat d
its own improved highways, known
as railways, there would be no
danger whatever of “negro domina
tion” in that state with respect to
these conveniences of the people and
such horrid thi' gs as “centraliza-i
lion at Washington” or “Mexicani
zation of this republic’’ would be
an utter impossibility.
Why don’t these great Southern
Democratic leaders try to set their
horn st and brave Democratic*brother
of the West light on this quest’on of
railroads, instead of magnifying his
erroneous advocacy of any sort of
Fed r.il ownership, and maintain! g
absolute silence on his correct and
purely Democratic advocacy of s‘ate
and municipal (not Federal) owner
ship? If these great Southern lead
ers really and honestly believe in the
Democratic principles of states,
riehts and local self-government, why
don t (hey openly and manfully ad
vocate those principles with respect
to lailroads and all other public fran
chises and lights-of-way? Who ever
authorized them to commit the hon
est Democracy of the great South to
the damnable doctiiue of private
monopoly of public property?
The state of Texas owns a rail
road, and is at the present time pro
ceeding to extend it in length and
make of it a great state highway to
be devoted to the use and benefit ot
the people of Texas, and not to in
creasing the private fortune of some
money schemer in New York or else
where.