the amendment that it was new legislation, seeking to have it ruled ́ out of the bill in that way. He made a long argument to sustain his point, and was supported by Williams of Mississippi, and other Democrats. The Republicans defended the item, and the Chair finally overruled Mr. Richardson's point of order. Still determined to beat the appropriation, if possible, Mr. Richardson appealed from the decision of the Chair, and on a rising vote the Chair was sustained by 124 to 98.

When the bill came to final passage a separate vote was taken on the appropriation, and the yeas and nays were ordered, resulting in the passage of the item by a vote of 179 to 107. It was during the roll-call that Mr. Cummings, when his name was called, in answering "yea," made his patriotic utterance. His closing words were almost drowned by the cries of "regular order" from the Democrats, who thus made protest against the spontaneous patriotism of their colleague. Those who voted for and against the appropriation were as follows:

Yeas, 179-Adams, Alexander, Allen (Me.), Aplin, Babcock, Ball (Del.), Barney, Bates, Beidler, Bishop, Blackburn, Boreing, Boutell, Bowersock, Brick, Bristow, Bromwell, Brown, Burk (Pa.), Burke, (S. Dak.), Burkett, Burleigh, Burton, Butler (Pa.), Calderhead, Cannon, Capron, Cassel, Cassingham, Connell, Conner, Coombs, Cooper (Wis.), Corliss, Cousins, Crowley, Crumpacker, Cummings, Currier, Curtis, Cushman, Dahle, Dalzell, Darragh, Davidson, Deemer, Dick, Draper, Eddy, Esch, Evans, Fletcher, Foerderer, Fordney, Foster (Ill.), Foster (Vt.), Fox, Gardner (Mich.), Gibson, Gill, Gillet (N. Y.), Gillett (Mass.), Gordon, Graff, Graham, Greene (Mass.), Grow, Hamilton, Haskins, Heatwole, Hemenway, Henry (Conn.). Hepburn, Hildebrant, Hill, Hitt, Holliday, Howell, Hughes, Hull, Irwin, Jack, Jones (Wash.), Joy, Kahn, Kern, Ketcham, Knapp, Knox, Kyle, Lacey, Lawrence, Lessler, Lewis (Pa.), Lindsay, Littlefield, Long, Loudenslager, Lovering, McCall, McCleary, McCulloch, McLachlan, McRae, Mahon, Mahony, Marshall, Martin, Mercer, Miers (Ind.), Miller, Minor, Mondell, Moody (Mass.), Moody (N. C.), Moody (Oreg.), Morgan, Morrell, Morris, Mudd, Needham, Nevin, Norton, Olmsted, Otjen, Overstreet, Palmer, Parker, Patterson (Pa.), Payne, Perkins, Powers (Me.), Powers (Mass.), Prince, Ray (N. Y.), Reeder, Reeves, Roberts, Rumple, Russell, Scott, Shattuc, Shelden, Sherman, Showalter, Skiles, Smith (Ill.), Smith, H. C., Smith, S. W.. Smith, Wm. Alden, Snook, Southard, Sperry, Steele, Stevens (Minn.). Stewart (N. J.), Stewart (N. Y.), Storm, Sulloway, Sutherland, Tawney, Tayler (Ohio), Taylor (Ala.), Thomas (Iowa), Tirrell, Tompkins (Ohio), Tongue, Van Voorhis, Vreeland, Wachter, Wadsworth, Wanger, Warnock, Watson, Weeks, Williams (Ill.), Woods, Young, and Zenor.

Nays, 107-Adamson, Allen (Ky.), Ball (Tex.), Bankhead, Bartlett, Bell, Bellamy, Belmont, Benton, Bowie, Brantley, Breazeale, Broussard, Brundidge, Burleson, Burnett, Butler (Mo.), Caldwell, Candler, Clayton, Cochran, Conry, Cooper (Tex.), Cowherd, Davey (La.), De Armond, De Graffenreid, Dinsmore, Edwards, Finley, Fitzgerald, Gaines (Tenn.), Gilbert, Glenn, Griggs, Hay, Henry (Miss.), Henry (Tex.), Hooker, Howard, Jackson (Kans.), Johnson, Jones (Va.), Kehoe, Kitchin, Claude; Kitchin, Wm. W.; Kleberg, Kluttz, Lanham, Latimer, Lester, Lever, Lewis (Ga.), Little, Livingston, Lloyd, McClellan, McDermott, McLain, Maddox, Moon, Mutchler, Naphen, Neville, Newlands, Otey, Padgett, Patterson (Tenn.), Pierce, Pou, Randell (Tex.), Reid, Rhea (Ky.), Richardson (Ala.), Richardson (Tenn,), Rixey, Robinson (Ind.), Robinson (Nebr.), Rucker, Ryan, Scarborough, Selby, Shackleford, Shafroth, Shallenberger, Sheppard, Sims, Slayden, Small, Snodgrass, Sparkman, Spight, Stark, Stephens (Tex.), Swanson, Talbert, Tate, Thayer, Thomas (N. C.), Thompson, Trimble, Underwood, Vandiver, White, Wiley, Williams (Miss.), and Wooten.

It is because we believe with all our heart and soul in the greatness of this country, because we feel the thrill of hardy life in our veins, and are confident that to us is given the privilege of playing a leading part in the century that has just opened, that we hail with eager delight the opportunity to do whatever task Providence may allot us.-Theodore Roosevelt, in speech at Minneapolis, September 2, 1901.

Grant had sent a regiment of ten companies of Union troops into my own county of Edgefield; sent there to repress the "rebels;" sent there to subject us to the government of those negroes and their carpetbag leaders. They were ordered to preserve order, to prevent us from terrorizing the negroes, to keep them from being kept from the polls, and to let them vote. They obeyed their orders as well as they could, but the result of that election was that, with a numerical majority of 2,000 more negroes who were 21 years of age, and who, under the dispensation of my friend from Maryland (Mr. McComas), were entitled to vote, and ought to be allowed to vote now-with ten companies of troops and 10,000,000 more back here to go down there if it was thought they were needed to keep us down, how did they come out in the struggle against white manhood and white brains? We only beat them 3,900 votes. (Laughter.) But we could have beaten them 6,900, or 9,900, or 99,000 if it had been necessary.-Senator B. F. Tillman, in the United States Senate, May 7, 1902.

REPEAL OF WAR TAXES.

One of the pledges of the Republican party redeemed by that party in the Fifty-seventh Congress was the repeal of the internal taxes levied to meet the expenses of the war with Spain.

The original act was passed as a war-revenue measure at the beginning of our war with Spain, and as a revenue-producer it proved a complete success. The revenue from internal taxes under the law brought into the Treasury of the United States the following annual sums:

From July 1, 1901, to December 31, 1901 (under act of March 2, 1901).....

34,152,462.18

Total

352,942,964.05

It was understood at the time of the passage of this act that it was purely a war measure, and that it would be repealed as soon as the war was over and the increased expense growing out of the war should cease.

In fulfillment of this understanding by the act of March 2, 1901, Congress attempted to reduce this taxation in an amount equal to $40,000,000. How well it succeeded is shown by the reduction of $20,063,159.35 for the six months following the time when the act of March 2, 1901, took effect. If no reduction had been made by Congress the natural increase, based upon the operations of the law for the previous three years, would indicate a revenue' from the original act for the year ending June 30, 1902, of about $109,000,000. Deducting from this amount the $40,000,000 reduction, leaves an estimated revenue from the internal-revenue features of the original act of about $69,000,000.

It was a wonderful condition of our national finances which enabled Congress to propose a reduction of $73,000,000 in the annual revenues. History furnishes no parallel to the situation. We had on the 1st day of February, 1902, in the Treasury an available cash balance of $177,632,088.26, and this notwithstanding the fact

.

that the Treasury has paid out of this available surplus during the present fiscal year in the purchase of bonds for the sinking fund the sum of $61,196,444.56.

The Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report, estimated the surplus of revenue over expenditures for the present fiscal year at $100,000,000. Subsequent events have confirmed this estimate as Conservative and reasonable. With this surplus for the year it seemed that, notwithstanding this reduction of $73,000,000, we would still have a surplus of $27,000,000 for the next fiscal year.

Early in the session of Congress the Ways and Means Committee brought in a bill repealing the war taxes. Prompt action was requested upon it, but of course the Democrats had to cavil at doing anything promptly, and the House of Representatives was compelled to bring them to terms by a rule being proposed providing for immediate consideration of the bill. With that the Democrats ceased opposition and the bill was passed. The Republican Senate was equally prompt, and the bill was passed through that body expeditiously.

It was one thing to make the promise to repeal these taxes; it was another to pursue an economic policy which would render repeal possible without injuring the resources of the Government. Under Republican administration the latter condition prevailed, and the promise was fulfilled.

The best statesmanship for America is that which looks to the highest interests of American labor and the highest development of American resources.-President McKinley, at Superior, Wis., October 12, 1899.

Shipping lines, if established to the principal countries with which we have dealings, would be of political as well as commerIcial benefit. From every standpoint it is unwise for the United States to continue to rely upon the ships of competing nations for the distribution of our goods. It should be made advantageous to carry American goods in American-built ships.-President Roosevelt, in Message to Congress, December 3, 1901.

While the nation that has dared to be great, that has had the will and the power to change the destiny of the ages, in the end must die, yet no less surely the nation that has played the part of the weakling must also die; and, whereas the nation that has done nothing leaves nothing behind it, the nation that has done a great work really continues, though in changed form, forevermore.-Theodore Roosevelt, in speech at Minneapolis, September 2, 1901.

THE ISTHMIAN CANAL.

LEGISLATION IN HARMONY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION.

Need of a Canal. The wonderful voyage of the Oregon from San Francisco to Santiago, and the anxiety of the American people for the magnificent battleship during that perilous run around the South American coast, was in large measure responsible for the determination that an isthmian canal must be under the control of this Government. For more than half a century the American people have favorably considered an isthmian canal in the interest of enlarged facilities for commerce, just as have the people of Europe given favorable consideration to projects to cut the American isthmus and unite the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans in the track of the world's commerce. But when the nation was engaged in war with a foreign power holding the gateway to the Caribbean Sea, and one of our greatest battleships had to make a long voyage around Cape Horn to defend the flag, commercial interests became secondary to national defense, and public sentiment crystalized in favor of the isthmian canal owned and controlled by the Government.

This new policy took form in 1898 and received the sanction of the Fifty-fifth Congress at the close of the session, March 3, 1899. The long discussion of canal projects by private enterprise and Government aid ended in the act appropriating $1,000,000 to provide for a complete investigation of all canal routes across the isthmus "with a view to the construction of a canal by the United States." This was the first time legislation by Congress indicated that there should be a canal under complete control by the Federal Government, owned not by a commercial corporation, but by all the people of the United States. It was a new Republican policy, inaugurated under the administration of President McKinley with patriotism rather than commercialism as its inspiration.

Authorization of a Survey. By the act of March 3, 1899, the President was authorized "to make full and complete investigation of the Isthmus of Panama with a view to the construction of a canal by the United States across the same to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans." The President was authorized to "make investigation of any and all practicable routes for a canal across said Isthmus of Panama, and particularly to investigate the two routes known respectively as the Nicaragua route and the Panama route, with a view to determining the most practicable