condemnation of his pictures increased, but he continued to show forth that which people and things "made him feel" in such impressively strong paintings as "The Sower," The Water Carrier," "The Gleaners," and "The Angelus." He was irregularly engaged upon the latter picture from 1855 to 1858, his brother Pierre posing for the male figure. The female figure was drawn from imagination. While the picture was in progress an American gentleman agreed to take the picture when it was finished, for three hundred and sixty dollars. On the completion of the painting the gentleman, who was travelling, could not be found, and it was sold to a Belgian for six hundred dollars. It has since passed through many hands, and is now valued at a hundred thousand dollars. In 1867 several of Millet's paintings were exhibited in a collection, and in 1868 he was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. In 1870 he exhibited In 1885 there was placed upon a rock at Barbizon, near the entrance of the Forest of Fontainbleau, a bronze plaque containing the faces of Millet and Rousseau, and the towns of Cherbourg and Gréville have raised monuments to this greatest of genre painters. Thus Appreciation showers her slow favors upon a grave, and tardy Honor brings her laurels to lay upon a heart which in life ached in vain for encouragement. LIDA A. CHURCHILL. THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE HEROES HE personal heroism of the men we commemorate here- of those who survived as well as of those who fell-had two elements which are especially affecting and worthy of remembrance. In the first place, these men went through all the squalor, wretchedness, and carnage of war without having any clear vision of their country's future. They did not know that victory was to crown the Union cause; they did not know that the nation was to come out of the four years' struggle delivered from slavery, united as never before, and confident, as never before, in its resources and its stability. One of the worst horrors in 1860-61, before the war opened, was the sickening doubt whether we really had any country. Civil war is immeasurably worse than any other war, because it inevitably creates just this terrible doubt about the national future. It was not till 1864-65 that it became plain that the North would ultimately win military success, and even then all men saw that after military success would come immense civil difficulties. The heroism of the soldiers on both sides, and the pathos of their sufferings and sacrifices, are greatly heightened by their inability to forecast the future. Like all devoted souls, they walked by faith, and not by sight. Most of the men whose names are written on these walls died with no shout of victory in their ears, or prospect of ultimate triumph before their glazing eyes. To console them in their mortal agony, in their supreme sacrifice, they had nothing but their own hope and faith. Secondly, the service these men rendered to their country was absolutely disinterested. No professional interest in war influenced them. No pay, or prize money, or prospect of pension had the least attraction for them. They offered their services and lives to the country, just for love, and out of determination that, if they could help it, the cause of freedom should take no harm. On the spur of the moment they abandoned promising civil careers, dear homes, and the natural occupations of men who had received collegiate training, for the savage destructions and butcheries of war. No mercenary motive can be attributed to any of them. This disinterestedness is essential to their heroic quality. The world has long since determined the limits of its occasional respect for mercenary soldiers. It admires in such only the faithful fulfilment of an immoral contract, The friends we commemorate here had in view no outward rewards near or remote. To these heroes of ours, and to all soldiers of like spirit in the Civil War, we owe debts which can never be paid except in respect, admiration, and loving remembrance. We owe to them the demonstration that out of the hideous losses and horrors of war, as out of pestilences, famines, shipwrecks, conflagrations, and the blastings of the tornado, noble souls can pluck glorious fruits of self-sacrifice and moral sublimity. And, further, we owe them a great uplifting of our country in dignity, strength, and security. *An address delivered in Memorial Hall, Harvard University, May 30, 1896, by President C. W. Eliot, LL.D. From "American Contributions to Civilization," New York: The Century Co., 1897. THE FIFTY-FIFTH UNITED STATES CONGRESS: A STUDY FROM THE "DIRECTORY" OF ITS SELF-MADE MEN NE of the most interesting of government publications has a very limited circulation and is little known outside of Washington and the newspaper offices of the country. This is the Congressional Directory," published each session. It contains brief biographies of the members, assignments to Committees, a list of leading government officials with a schedule of their duties, and other information of interest particularly in Washington. The most interesting feature, however, is the biographical department. These sketches are usually furnished by the members themselves. Though brief, they are full of interest. In spite of all that is being so often said about poor representatives of the people being sent to Washington, Congressmen are, as a rule, men of unusual ability, and they are able representatives of their constituents. Death of Senator Harris A study of the lives of the present membership discloses some very interesting information. There are 357 Representatives, 3 Territorial delegates, 89 Senators, and one vacancy caused by the contest of Senator (?) Corbett for the Oregon seat. Two of the oldest members in point of service who were elected to this Congress are now dead. Senator Isham G. Harris, of Tennessee, died last July, after one of the most remarkable public careers in our history, being exceeded in its peculiarities only by that of Sam Houston. Mr. Harris first went to Congress in 1849, and was in the service of his State or held federal office almost continuously until his death. In his death the Senate lost its most picturesque member. The membership of the House of Representatives includes 204 Republicans, 123 Democrats, 27 Populists, and 3 Silverites. William S. Holman, of Indiana, sometimes called the "watch-dog of the Treasury," also died last summer. He had served more years in the House than any other member, his service dating back to before the civil war. Altogether there have already been seven changes due to death and resignations since Congress began — an unusual number. Many New Members Another feature of the present Congress is the absence of many men who were prominent figures a few years ago. The war brought out a new crop of Congressmen, but most of these are dead or have retired from public life. This does not mean that there are not many veterans on both sides. But the men who came into prominence thirty years ago by reason of the war are nearly all dead, the most conspicuous survivor in the House being ex-Speaker Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, who retired in 1863, to reappear some thirty years later. In the Senate, there are more men running back to the war-period than in the House. The most conspicuous is Senator Morrill, who has been in one House or the other for nearly fifty years. John Sherman, who also served before the war, retired from this Congress to become Secretary of State. Veterans of both Armies But veterans of the war are still numerous in both Houses. There are fifty-eight men who served in the Union army or navy and forty-seven who served in the Confederate forces. These veterans vary in rank all the way from privates to a lieutenantgeneral, the latter being the intrepid Joe Wheeler, of Alabama. In the House, the ex-Confederates were many of them privates, in spite of the jest that there were none in the South. What is of unusual interest is the fact that the South is sending more than its proportion of young men. It used to be that the young men came largely from the West, where opportunities were greater, but with the retirement of the Old Guard in the South the young men are rapidly forging to the front. This is in part explained by the fact that the Populists have large influence there and they have encouraged new blood rather than had recourse to former leaders. reduced the former average. Most of the men above sixty-five are in the Senate. There are in Congress seventy men not over forty and sixty-seven over sixty years of age. The oldest man in Congress is Senator Morrill, who is in his eighty-eighth year. The oldest man in the House is Mr. Grow, who is seventy-five. Our Congress differs from any other in the world in the fact that about one-half of the members are lawyers. In other countries business men and professional men other than lawyers, together with those of the leisure class, predominate. One reason for the predominance of lawyers in this country is that they find politics an aid to their profession. The lawyer is better known to the public as a speaker than any one else, and is willing to devote more of his time to stump speaking than is a business man. We have a very small leisure class in this country, and very few in this class care to go into politics. In fact our men of leisure consist almost exclusively of those who inherit wealth. In European countries it is quite the custom for a man who has amassed a competence, even if not a large one, to retire from business and spend his time in the cultivation of the mind. With us, it is an unusual event for a man to retire unless he is quite old, when he has neither time nor inclination for politics. Our Congress unlike those of Europe Those who have visited parliamentary bodies in Europe have noticed the marked difference in the appearance of the members of those bodies as compared with our own, and an especial difference is observable in the manner of conducting the proceedings. It is rare that desks are provided for members in a European parliament. Benches only are provided, and there is a compact government party and a more or less compact opposition. Ordinarily, there is a small attendance, and the proceedings usually are dull. But when some great measure is on, the benches are crowded, and sometimes the most exciting scenes prevail, particularly in France and AustroHungary. The riotous proceedings in the latter last December threatened the existence of the dual monarchy. In our own Congress every member has a desk, and members will usually be found writing, reading, or engaged in conversation, so that it is difficult from the gallery to keep track of the proceedings. When there is an important bill up, there is more order. In our Congress the Speaker has practical control of the whole course of legislation, and no one can speak nor can a bill be brought up without his consent. This has been found necessary because of the large membership and the great number of bills. The Speaker and the Committee on Rules, of which the Speaker is the practical autocrat, take the place of the government ministry in other nations. Benches were once Tried At one time before the war the desks were taken out and benches put in, in the hope that it would expedite business and help to preserve order. The experiment was not a success, and it was soon given up. Just now there is an agitation in favor of putting benches in once more. It would put the members in a much more restricted space and would enable speakers to be better heard by the members, though it is to be feared that it would be difficult to keep a quorum present. It is to be hoped that the experiment will be tried, for at present it is difficult for members who want to follow the doings of the House to do so unless they are advantageously situated. One notable feature of the personnel of an American Congress is the quick, nervous motions of the members and their animated countenances. Of course, there are leaders by common consent on the floor, yet any one has a right to plunge into debate or engage in repartee if he gets the opportunity. When important bills are before the House, the Committee on Rules usually assigns the time for debate, which is divided between the two parties. The member in charge of the bill apportions the time on his side and the leader of the opposition apportions what is allotted to him among the members who desire to speak. Usually there is not enough time for half those who desire to speak, and there are many heartburnings as a result. This applies to general as well as to partisan measures. Those who do not get a chance to speak are comforted by being allowed to print their speeches in the Congressional Record," which each member can send to his constituents, who do not know that he did not open his mouth on the subject. The leave to print" got to be so much abused that it is now greatly restricted, but is still ample for all real necessities of members who want to air their views. Speaker Reed's Commanding Position In the present House the commanding figure is the Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Reed. He would command attention anywhere. There has been a great deal of talk about his being a "tyrant, etc., but the fact that his "rules" were practically adopted by the opposition when in power show that they are based on just considerations. In fact, without the present system it would be impossible to conduct any business in the face of a determined opposition. It is obviously best that the majority should exercise their power and stand or fall by it afterwards. Leaders Some Republican Mr. Dingley, as leader of the Republicans on the floor, is not a man to attract attention, aside from the strong intellectuality expressed in his face. He looks as if he might be a college professor, but he is always alert, knows all that is going on every minute on the floor, and manages to keep his party well in hand. His position as Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means gives him great power over legislation. He knows every day the exact financial condition of the government finances, receiving daily information before going to the House. Mr. Cannon, one of the oldest men in point of service in the House, as Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, also wields a great deal of power. He is a striking looking figure, and is always willing to enter into debate in which he seldom gets worsted. Mr. Hitt, as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, has been a conspicuous figure in the present Congress. He represents the administration in its foreign policy and particularly as regards the Cuban question. His position has been one of great delicacy. It is known that a large majority of the House is in favor of granting belligerent rights to the Cubans, and that the measure would pass if it ever came to a vote. Mr. Hitt has been successful up to the present writing in preventing a direct yote. Conspicuous in appearance and by reason of his close friendship to the President is Gen. Grosvenor, who had charge of the Washington end of McKinley's canvass for the nomination in 1896. He has been a long time in Congress, is a ready speaker, though apt to be caustic. Mr. Hepburn is another of the leaders on the floor who is quick in debate and is personally one of the most popular men in the House. Other leaders are Walker, of Massachusetts, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, an important post; Payne, of New York; Dalzell, of Pennsylvania; Bingham, of Pennsylvania; Henderson, of Iowa; and Boutelle, of Maine. This Some Leaders of The Democratic side of the Opposition the House is not so well organized. The recent split in the party over financial questions has made unanimity on the floor of Congress impossible. The nominal leader of the Democratic side is Mr. Bailey, of Texas, a young man of parts, who has gained notoriety by refusing to wear a dress suit. has given many a wrong impression of his abilities, which are admitted. That his leadership is not complete, is not entirely his fault, for the reasons already stated. The most picturesque figure is Mr. Lewis, of Washington, who a few wealthy, and is a leading figure on the years ago was a dock hand, but is now floor of the House. In the matter of clothes, he is particularly noticeable, and it is said that while speaking he averages three hundred words or more a minute. The old time Democratic leaders are Benton McMillin, of Tennessee; Gen. Wheeler, of Alabama, and Richardson, of Tennessee. These are all that are left of the Old Guard which was so prominent a few years ago. In fact, counting the whole of the present term, there are only forty-three members who have served ten years and over. A great many leading Republicans were permanently retired in the slump of 1892, and a great many Democrats were permanently retired in the Republican sweep of 1894. Many of the new men who came in at these elections are still in Congress, and a great number of them are young men. Different methods in the Senate The Senate is so different in its methods that leadership there is based on different considerations from those that rule in the House. In the Senate there are no rules to terminate debate, and discussion can go on until every one is ready to vote. This has been the practice from the beginning, and all efforts to change it have failed. The oldest Senator in point of service, as well as in years, is Morrill, of Vermont. He was many years in the House, and was in charge of the tariff bill of 1860-61, which bears his name. He is constant in his attendance in the Senate, and usually speaks on financial or commercial questions. He is always listened to with the respect which his years, service, and abilities excite. He is not, however, the Republican leader, nor is there any one Senator who holds that distinction. A group composed of Aldrich, Allison, Quay, Frye, Hoar, Cullom, Burrows, Platt, Spooner, and Thurston, are the real leaders of the Republican wing. On the Democratic side, Jones, of Arkansas; Vest, Morgan, Cockrell, and Turpie are the leaders. Of the Populists proper, Mr. Allen is the leader, though Butler, of North Carolina, is the head of the party. Mr. Kyle, though a Populist, in many cases affiliates with the Republicans. The most conspicuous group in many respects are those former Republicans who have separated from the party on financial questions. Intellectually, there are some very strong men among them. Stewart, Jones, of Nevada, and Teller are men of wide experience, besides being able speakers for the silver cause. Present and Past Congresses A great deal is said in these days about the degeneracy of the Senate, in fact about the degeneracy of both houses of Congress. There are many people who believe that the present Congress is far below the average intellectual ability and moral worth of Congresses fifty years or more ago. This reminds one of the witty saying of an Englishman. A lady complained to him that she thought London "Punch" was not as good as it used to be. "Madam," he replied, "it never was." There is a great deal of truth in this statement. We are all prone to exag gerate the blessings of the past and to be pessimistic as to the present. No opinion on any such subject should be given without some knowledge of the facts. This writer has made a careful study of American history for many years and is not inclined in the least to be pessimistic. If we except the Congress of 1849-51, there is probably no Congress of the past that excels in ability that of the present. In making this exception, reference is made only to the few individuals which made that Congress famous. So far as the mass was concerned, it should be judged by its acts, and certainly the Clay Compromises of 1850 ought not to entitle that Congress to any great credit from posterity. Those compromises were about all that was accomplished, and they settled nothing, but introduced a discordant element into politics which lasted to the period of the Civil War. The Great Leaders In that Congress sat of 1850 many men of renown. In the Senate were Calhoun, Webster, Clay, Benton, and Seward. It is true that it would be hard to match these men in the Senate to-day, for they were men of a type that was peculiar to their times and environment. But as legislators for the public good a favorable comparison can be made. Webster was an intellectual giant, a great orator, and yet as a constructive statesman he fell far below men of lesser note. If he were to be known alone for his legislative record he would not have the niche in history he now occupies. His reply to Hayne is one of the finest specimens of English oratory, and its value to the nation cannot be over-estimated. Yet it was not a speech on current legislation, but a reply to an attack which Webster himself pointed out had nothing whatever to do with the Foote Resolution. Clay was undoubtedly one of the ablest of our statesmen; as a constructive legislator he had few equals. He was the fountain head of Whig policy, but Clay himself lost the presidency by reason of that fatal weakness in his constitution which led him in times of emergency to retreat from the position he had himself set up for his party, and in this Congress he left as a legacy to his country not a settlement of differences, as he hoped, but a source of irritation which reopened "the five bleeding wounds" he tried |