Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.