Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1900-03-30

women ana inc plauultS OF tne people
for her firm stand against the con-
gressionalsp and vulgar demonstra-
tions of gutter snipes in high places
She honored herself, and honored
her sex, in honoring the memory of her
husband Ly thus forbidding the pres
ence of n congressional committee at
the funeral.
1t would require great deal of time
to examine the books of the senate and
house of representatives, in order to
secure the statistics concerning the
cost of all congressional funerals. But
in speech on this subject, delivered
in December, 1895, Senator PETER, OF
Kansas, gave some statistics which had
been carefully compiled, and from that
official utterauce the following facts
are gathered:
The first congressional funeral was
that of Senator Gaillard, of South Caro-
lima, which occurred February &c, 1926,
at an expense OF $S77.44. Twenty-four
senators had previously died, and the
congress had lot paid their expenses
ofsinterment. Read how the expenses
increased from time to time in the fol-
lowing funerals of senator's
John Fairfield. of Maine. December "a.
| 1S47, s1,O72.25.
Chester Ashley, Arkansas. April 90. 1s4S.
| $1,5O5.42.
John C. Calhoun South Carolina, March
| 81, 1850, $3.lO6.47.
Henry Clay, Kentucky, June %, 1852, s5,-
| 447.O2.
Solomon Foot, Vermont, March 2S, 1866.
| $4,399.57.
Charles Sumner. Massachusetts,, March
| IL, 1874. Si,6S7.99
MatthewH. Carpenter. Wisconsin, Febru-
AIRY "a. 1881. S3,Ol24
John F. Miller, California. March s, 1856.
SS 1924.
George Hearst, California. February 2S,
| 1891, s2l, ,322,55.
Just look at the difference in the cost
of the funerals of the two California
senators. The funeral of Senator Mil
Ter cost $3,532.34. The funeral of SEN
ator Hearst cosy 21,322.55. The same
distance was tIaversed, and the eX-
penses should not have been very diff
ferent. Senator Hearst was popular
man, and Il good man in many respects.
If he could have had anything to say
! in the matter his funeral would not
have been three weeks junket for
employees, twice across the continent,
in the course of which upwards of SIS.
900 should be expended for champagne,
cigars and luxurious banqueting. He
was proud man, and rich man. who
would rather have paid all expenses
himself, even though they had been
twice as large, than to have had his
name recorded as it is in this manner.
Some of those who disgraced his MEM
DRY in this manner still hold public
places.
This is but . brief presentation of
facts; only partial culling of Incl
uents from vast accumulation of in.
cidents of this nature. The people do
not know, and it is just as we'll that
they do not know, the many ways in
which their moneys are wastesl under
various preteXts and devices. But the
disgraceful funeral junkets which have
occurred should be known, at least in
part, in order that the brave stand
taken by the wife of the late congress.
man from New York may the better be
understood and the more fully appre'
ciated.
Without redundancy, but for the
sake of emphasis, the statement may
be repeated that this good woman has
honored herself, honored the memory
of her husband, and honored her sex.
rs well as rendered service to her coun-
try, by refusing to permit recurrence
of revolving scandal on the occasion
of the closing of the grave over the
body of her beloved.
! SMITH D. FRY.