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;
