y .lW " T-- ' -v The Commoner. JH 24, 1905 5 9W. "UlL"1 II"1'" " " "f M. fCURReNT HjLintwariifTi i mwim 38liWto' H'r''WftTijti3r 1 J': " m--vumpm Hfyqpmg', Topics"-tW , ' if f "f ."WW a yg rtpMrjsW iif .n. -- jvt 3. - - r .v zvr ithmk. v -.r- i i -m. a p.Im v - -- m .tak -wr i .a ht ai w.. . . v.rrm.. mii''' .am. v - - . . .. -- j - t -i , -- w, - .- m w.r jv BKS 71LA.NCIS B. LOOMIS, first secretary of state, r will bo appointed, according to an Associated disnatch. ambassador to Mexico in succes- Ifcfto Edwin H. Conger, when the latter will ro- to become a candidate next summer for the norship of Iowa. The Washington corro dent for the Chicago Tribune says that Mr4 is is to be made the scapegoat in the San ttingan affair. It is claimed, that he is per- lly responsible for the protocol of January l) which subsequently was repudiated by the department. While the Tribune correspond- eays that Mr. Loomis stands well with the dent, "There is no doubt of the fact that the "utious public statement issued by the acting etary of state in which he appeared so obli- s of the treaty-making powers vested in the ed States has brought a peck of trouble upon '?. administration." As an attempt at paciflca- Loomis is to be transferred. Representative grosvenor of Ohio has S announced on March 13 that the Ohio re- rblicans would present the name of Senator teph B. Foraker to the republican national con- ition of 1908. Mr, Grosvenor also said that retary Taft expected to be appointed to the ited States supreme court and would not be a ididate. It was recently reported that Harry KsNew of Indiana would be chosen chairman of It republican national committee to succeed Mr. telyou, but it is understood that Vice President tirbanks objected to New's appointment and irijpaper dispatches indicate that Mr. Fairbank's Sections will prevail. It is no longer a secret it Indiana republicans wilL .present Mr. Fair- ik's name to the republican convention of JL908. '-"-i. ibuuLAJU KiaruitTB irom jneici Marsnai uva- ' ma, says a writer in the Chicago Record- Id, covering only a portion of the great Muk- battlefleld, Indicate that Kuropatkin's losses more than 'double those of the French in the v ?jiHious oattie oi secian ana iar exceeu tne results ' of'any modern combat. This writer says: "In . the Shakhe region alone the Russian dead number pMf;500, and the total killed and wounded are es- SfLumaieu at iw,uuu. tuis aoes not taice mio account Die slaughter west of Mukden, where the Russians acie a desperate attempt to stop tne turning tovement by General Nogi's Port Arthur vete- ns, the fighting which Kuroki led on the eastern ank, the work of Kawamura's flying column, or e slaughter of the Russian rear guard which s been going on north of Mukden ever since iday. The Japanese already have counted 40,- 0 prisoners, and the number is growing hourly. yama's reports account for 130,000 men from uropatkin's army, which probably is less than If of the Russian losses. The Japanese lost ,222 men from February 26 to March 12 in ac- mplishing this tremendous victory. The 'French ss at Sedan, killed, wounded and taken prisoners, taled 103,000, while the Germans lost 9,000." CCORDING to the same authority, the follow ing shows approximately the number of Lroops engaged and the losses on both sides in the principal land battles fought previous to the" Kttukden conflict: Mukden Forces engaged: Japs Minese, 500,000; Russian, 325,000: losses, Japanese, 30,000: Russian, 65,000. Sha River Forces en- fegaged, Japanese, 250,000; Russian, 275,000: losses, Japanese, 35,000; Russian, 56,000. Liao-Yang-r EForces engaged, Japanese, 200,000; Russian, 180,- ftTOO: losses, Japanese, 18,000; Russian, 22,000. Port Arthur Forces engaged, Japanese, 100,000; Ktussian, 32,000: 'losses, Japanese, 47,000; Russian, sl5,000. Yalu River Forces engaged, Japanese, 60,000; Russian, 10,000: losses, Japanese, 1,000; -.Russian, 2,500. S,f THE NUMBER of troops engaged in the battles of modern times and the losses on both !1 f;.. .1..1 ,:r. .., J, .!.! -,.,.!., Biaes cue iohbus lmuuumg uuuu, wuuiiuuu, miauaie .and prisoners are shown by the Record-Herald writer as follows: "Austerlitz French, men en gaged, 60,000; losses, 12,000: Russo-Austrians, men engaged, 80,000: losses, 30,000. Antietam Fede rals, men engaged, 65,000; losses, 12,410: Confede rates, men engaged, 28,000; losses, 6,500. Bautzen K French, men engaged, 110,000; losses, 20,000: Al lies, men' engaged, 90,000; losses, 13,000. Blen- helm Allies, men engaged, 52,000; losses, 11,600: French-Bavarians, men engaged, 60,000, losses 35, 000. Borodino Russians, men engaged, 110,000; losses, 35,000: Frpnch, men engaged, 130,000; losses, 45,000. Boyne English, men engaged, 36, 000; losses, 500: Irish, men engaged, 30,000; losses, 1,500. Chickamauga Federals, men engaged, 57, 000; losses, 15,851: Confederates, 50,000; losses, 17,804. Fontenoy French, men engaged, 70,000; losses, 11,500: Allies, men engaged, 50,000; losses, 12,000. Gettysburg Federals, men engaged, 93, 500; losses, 23,000: Confederates, men engaged, 70,000; losses, 20,450. Gravelotte Germans, men engaged, 211,000; losses, 20,000: French, men en gaged, 140,000; losses. 13,000. Jena French, men engaged, 100,000; losses, 10,000: Prussians, men en gaged, 60,000; losses, 27,000. Leipzig Allies, men engaged, 240,000; losses, 35,000: French, men en gaged, 160,000; losses, 40,000. Magenta French Sardinians, men engaged, 55,000; losses, 4,000: Austrians, men engaged, 75,000; losses, 17,000. Majuba Hill Boers, men engaged, 450; losses, 100: English, men engaged, 700; losses, 240. Ma rengo French, men engaged, 28,000; losses, 7,000: Austrians, men engaged, 33,000; losses, 12,000. Sadowa Prussians, men engaged, 221,000; losses, .10,000: Austrians, men engaged, 205,000; losses, 40,000. Sedan French, men engaged, 150,000; losses, killed and wounded, 17,000; surrendered, 86,000: Germans, men engaged, 250,000; losses, 9,000. Shiloh Federals, men engaged, 55,000; losses, 13,573: Confederates, men engaged, 40,000; losses, '10,669.., Smolensk French, men engaged, 175,000; losses, 20,000: Russians, men engaged, 120,000; losses, 40,000. Solferlno French-Sardinians, men engaged, 150,000; losses, 18,000: Au3 trians, men engaged, 170,000; losses, 20,000. Wag ram French, men engaged, 150,000; losses, 25, 000: Austrians, men engaged, 120,000; losses, 25, 000. Waterloo Allies, men engaged, 214,671; losses, 22,976: French, men engaged, 124,588; losses, 25,600."- THE $190,000 mileage grab undertaken by the house of representatives has brought upon the members of congress widespread condemna 1 ion. Walter Wellman, Washington correspondent for the Chicago Record-Herald, referring to this attempted grab, says: "Proceeding upon the as sumption that their constituents' memory is no longer than thoir own, a majority of the house of representatives voted themselves $190,000 mile age in the closing days of the last session, where as one year ago not a single member, with the elections following in the fall, had the courage to stand for such an appropriation. To the ordinary congressman it makes a great deal of difference in handling public affairs whether he is to come before his people for election in a few short months or whether a couple of years are to inter vene. The mileage' grab is not a new question. It has been up several times in congress, but never has been successful. Nevertheless, had not the senate interposed and removed from the general deficiency bill the item inserted by the house, the raid upon the treasury probably would have been successful this year." MR. WELLMAN directs attention to the fact that the majority who voted for the-mileage grab also voted to impeach Judge Swayne on the charge of falsifying accounts .because he charged the maximum allowance of $10 per day when his actual expenses were less. Mr. Wellman has com piled from the Congressional Record the names of members who voted for or were favorable to the mileage grab and arranged them by state dele ' gations. Those who voted for the grab were as follows: Arkansas Dinsmore. California Bell, Daniels, Gillett, Livernash, Wynn. Colorado Brooks. Connecticut Brandegee. Delaware Houston. Illinois Emerich, Foster, Graff, Knopf, Lorimer, McAndrews, Mann, Rainey, Rodenberg, Snapp. Indiana Sterling, Cromer, Crumpacker, Griffith, Miers, Overstreet, Robinson. Iowa Hull, Smith. Kentucky Hunter. Louisiana Breaze ale, BroussanL Davey, Pujo. Maryland Wachter. Massachusetts McNary, Sullivan. Michigan Bishop, Fordney. Minnesota Davis, McCIeary, Tawney,, Mississippi Hill. Missouri Dougherty, Hunt, Robb. New Hampshire Sulloway. "New Jersey Gardner, Howell, Hughes, Loudenslager, McDermott New York Draper, Fitzgerald, Goul- E den, RIdor, Ryan, Sherman, Shobor, Smith, Wilson. North Dakota Marshall, Spalding. Ohio Boidler, Grosvenor, Kylo, Morgan, Snook, Southard, Van Vorhis, Wecms. Pennsylvania Drcssor, Patter son, Shull. South Carolina Aiken, Lagaro. South Dakota Burko, Martin. Tennessee Brownlow, Richardson. Utah Howell. Virginia Maynard. Washington Cushinan, Humphrey, Jones. -Wisconsin Adams, Brown, Minor. THOSE who were paired in favor of the grab wore as follows: California Knowland, Needham. Colorado Bonyngo. Connecticut Lil ley. Illinois Foss, Marsh, Prlnco, Wilson. In diana Watson. Iowa BIrdsall, Cousins, Hedge, Hepburn, Thomas. Kansas Campbell, Curtis. Maine Burleigh. Maryland Mudd. Massachu setts Gillett, Lawrence, Tirroll. Michigan Gardner. Minnesota Bcdo, Stovens. Missouri Bartholdt. Montana Dixon. Nebraska McCar thy. New Jersey Fowler. Now York Ketcham, Perkins, Vrceland, Wadsworth. Ohio Kennedy, Longworth. Pennsylvania Acheson, Adams, Cooper, Doemor, Moon, Morrell, Sibloy, Wright. West Virginia Dovener, Hughes. Wisconsin Esch. r VEN NEW JERSEY is stirred by the anti monopoly movement. Some time ago a movement was set on foot In Now Jersey to do away with franchise grabbing and to provide that hereafter no special franchises shall bo granted in the state for a longer term than 25 years. A joint resolution condemning perpetual franchises was Introduced in tho Now Jersey legislature. This was followed up with a bill limiting future fran chises to public service corporations as aforesaid. A writor in tho Chicago Record-Herald describes the proceedings in this way: "Hearings wore granted, however, and several mayors and leading citizens of the state appeared and argued for the bill, pointing to the example of Chicago, New York and other American cities and showing- that in her franchise policy New Jersey was far be hind the procession. Local illustrations and ob ject lessons were not wanting. In Jersey City an 'old wreck' of a horse car service which was not worth $50,000 brought $4,000,000 to Its owners. And tho syndicate which paid this sum is reaping fat dividends. 'The whole value of the property lay in the perpetual franchise, from which tho city derives next to no revenue. The advocates of the 'good old plan' mado a poor showing at tho hearings, but that did not disconcert them. They knew their legislature. As a matter of fact, tho limited franchise bill was promptly killed. A committee substitute was offered in the house pro viding for the appointment by the governor of a commission to 'Investigate the entire subject' Tind report to the next legislature whether any fran chise legislation ought to be enacted by happy New Jersey. This substitute has been adopted and the opponents of limited franchise bills breathe freely again. The reformers are disappointed, but was It not unreasonable, in the circumstances, to expect progress at a more rapid rate? An investi gation is an admission that possibly things aro not ideal which is a good deal for tho majority of the New Jorsey legislature. Painful and slow and reluctant motion is better than none at all when it is not backward." FOR the purpose of fortifying the position of republican senators who favor the ratifica tion of the San Domingan treaty, the state depart ment has issued a statement to show that there la " precedent for the proposed- collection of Dominican revenues by the agents of the United States. Tho following account of action taken by James G. Blaine, secretary of state, in an effort to settle the dispute between France and Venezuela, is presented: "In 1880 a difficulty arose between France and Venezuela with regard to the failure of the latter government promptly to pay tho installments due to France on the settlement of the claims against Venezuela made in 1864. The Venezuelan government represented to the United States that there was danger that the French gov ernment would, institute a blockade and take pos session of custom houses for the purpose of col lecting the money. Under these circumstances Venezuela proposed to deliver certain monthly sums to the government of tho United States, which should distribute tho money among tho Mtoc atJladMttoatMfrikwjiwi In . vaii.J.m:,i(tlW-zr . itwi .mauatf Wiuan;