TO few men is it granted to have an active

participation in the political and social progress of sixty years, like Alexander Ramsey, of Pennsylvania and Minnesota. His earliest public work was in the Presidential campaign of 1840, of "Tippecanoe and Tyler, too." After two terms in Congress from his native State, he came to Minnesota, under appointment by President Taylor, to be its first Territorial governor.

When Minnesota had been admitted to the Union, he was again its governor, from 1860 to 1863, bearing heavy burdens of the Civil War and of a great outbreak and massacre by the Sioux Indians in the southwestern part of the State. During the next twelve years, he was a United States Senator from Minnesota; and from 1879 to 1881, was Secretary of War under President Hayes.

Through all his life, he was a steadfast Whig and Republican, a public-spirited citizen, and a genial and kind neighbor and friend, honored and beloved by all who knew him. Possessing to the last a remarkably good memory, a cheerful temperament, and a lively interest in all current events, he enjoyed generally good health, and continued to attend to public and private business until only a few weeks before his death, in the latter half of his eighty-eighth year. Among the many whose efforts have founded and built up Minnesota, it is not invidious to assign to Governor Ramsey the grand distinction of having been her foremost citizen.

Alexander Ramsey was born near Harrisburg, Pa., September 8, 1815. His father and grandfather were born in Pennsylvania, but more remotely the family was of Scotch ancestry.

His father, Thomas Ramsey, was an officer in the War of 1812, and died when Alexander was about ten years old. The mother, Elizabeth Kelker Ramsey, was a descendant of early German settlers of Pennsylvania. After his father's death, Alexander was received into the family of his mother's uncle, Frederick Kelker, a merchant in Harrisburg. In the intervals between school terms, he was employed in the uncle's store, and later as a clerk in the office of the county register of deeds.

In childhood, he was very fond of reading and study. One of his early teachers, Isaac D. Rupp, who afterward became eminent as an historian, often spoke of his former pupil as a boy

of very unusual abilities. At the age of eighteen years, he entered Lafayette College, at Easton, Pa., where he took a partial course. Later, he studied law with the Hon. Hamilton Alricks, of Harrisburg, Pa., and in the law school of the Hon. John Reed, at Carlisle, Pa., and in 1839 was admitted to the practice of law.

The next year, young Ramsey became well known as an efficient worker in the Whig party, which elected Harrison and Tyler. He was chosen as the secretary of the electoral college of Pennsylvania; and in January, 1841, he was elected chief clerk of the House of Representatives of that State.

In the years 1843 to 1847, he represented his district, -Dauphin, Lebanon, and Schuylkill counties,-in Congress, but declined a renomination for a third term. Of this early public service, William H. Barnes wrote: "Mr. Ramsey sustained the character and earned the reputation of a useful rather than merely ornamental member. He was more remarkable for his practical ability and diligent attention to business than for any special efforts at oratorical display."

On September 10, 1845, Mr. Ramsey was married to Miss Anna Earl Jenks, a daughter of the Hon. Michael H. Jenks, a judge in Bucks County, Pa., and a Representative in Congress from 1843 to 1845. By her admirable social qualities, and her constant interest in the public career of her husband in Pennsylvania and Minnesota, and during their terms of residence at the national capital, Mrs. Ramsey contributed in no small degree to his advancement and success.

In 1848, he was chairman of the Whig State Committee during the campaign which elected Gen. Zachary Taylor to the Presidency.

Minnesota was established as a Territory by act of Congress on March 3, 1849, the day preceding President Taylor's inauguration. Within the same month, the President offered to Mr. Ramsey the appointment of governor of this new Territory, which he decided to accept, and his commission was dated April 2, 1849. He arrived in St. Paul, the frontier village designated to be the seat of the Territorial government, on May 27; and on the first day of June, the other Territorial officers having also arrived, he issued a proclamation declaring Minnesota Territory duly organized.

When he came to Minnesota, it was almost wholly an Indian country, its southern half being owned by the Sioux or Dakotas, and its northern half by the Ojibways. Through treaties negotiated by Governor Ramsey and Luke Lea, as commissioners for the federal government, with the Sioux bands in July and August, 1851, at Traverse des Sioux and Mendota, they ceded to the United States a vast prairie region in southern Minnesota, which was thus opened to white settle

ment.

In the autumn of the same year, Governor Ramsey visited the Red River valley, and at Pembina made a treaty with the Ojibways for the cession of their prairie lands drained by the Red River. The Ojibway treaty, how. ever, was not ratified by the Senate. Its purpose was not attained until twelve years later, when, in October, 1863, a treaty was effected by Alexander Ramsey and Ashley C. Morrill, as United States commissioners, with the Red Lake and Pembina bands of the Ojibways.

The Sioux treaties of 1851 required payments of large

sums of money, amounting to nearly $600,000, to the tribes for their lands; and in connection with its disbursement, under Governor Ramsey's direction as superintendent of Indian affairs in Minnesota, various accusations of injustice and fraud were raised against him. These charges were investigated, in the year 1853, by Willis A. Gorman and Richard M. Young, appointed by President Pierce as United States commissioners for the trial, which was held in St. Paul, commencing on July 6 and ending on October 7. The report of the commission, with testimony of witnesses and accompanying papers, together forming four hundred and thirty-one printed pages, was laid before Congress January 10, 1854. It fully exonerated Governor Ramsey, as former enemies confessed.

Under the Democratic administration of Presi

THE LATE HON. ALEXANDER RAMSEY.

dent Pierce, Willis A. Gorman was appointed to the governorship of Minnesota Territory, succeeding Ramsey on May 15, 1853. Remaining in St. Paul, which was continuously his home ever after his first coming in 1849, excepting when absent in Washington, the former gov ernor's next important public duties were as mayor, in 1855, of this young city, which had been incorporated in March, 1854.

After Minnesota attained to Statehood, in 1858, Ramsey was the Republican candidate for governor in the first State campaign, but was defeated by the Democratic candidate, Gen. Henry H. Sibley, who became the first governor of the new State. In the next campaign, when Ramsey and Sibley were again candidates, the former was elected governor by an unquestioned majority. He was inaugurated on January 2, 1860. By reëlection, he continued in this

position at the head of the State, through the trying early half of the Civil War, until July 10, 1863, when, having been elected to the United States Senate, he resigned the governorship.

Most useful to this State, among all the services rendered to it by Governor Ramsey, was his earnest advocacy, in his second and third annual messages to the Legislature, that the very ample federal grant of two sections of land in each surveyed township, for the establishment of a public-school fund, should be reserved for sale at much higher prices than the $1.25 per acre of the general government lands. Through his influence, a law was enacted, March 10, 1862, by which the minimum price for sales of the school lands was fixed at $5 per acre. Under the operation of this law, and of later laws concerning timber and ores on school lands, Minnesota has a larger permanent fund for the support of common schools than any other State, excepting the very large State of Texas. It amounted, at the end of the last fiscal year, July 31, 1902, to $14,316,000.

Governor Ramsey was an ardent supporter of the Union during the Civil War. In his third annual message, January 9, 1862, he wrote: "When the infamous attack upon Fort Sumter occurred, in April, 1861, I was in the city of Washington, on business connected with the State, and at once called upon the Secretary of War, in company with two of our fellow-citizens in official station, and tendered one thousand men to the Government on the part of Minnesota. I am proud to know that this was the first tender of troops made to the President."

A difficulty more formidable than the supply of regiments to go South, and falling with the suddenness of a lightning-stroke, was the massacre by the Sioux, on August 18, 1862, of several hundred white settlers in southwestern Minnesota. The escaping survivors and refugees, in great numbers, flocked into the older and more eastern settlements. They were cared for under the direction of Governor Ramsey, who also hastily raised troops and dispatched them. to the region of the outbreak. About a month after its beginning, the hostile savages were overwhelmingly defeated by General Sibley in the battle of Wood Lake; their white prisoners, about one hundred and fifty women and children, were released; many of the captured Sioux were soon afterward tried, and in December, thirty-eight were executed. In the ensuing frontier campaigns of 1863 and 1864, the Sioux, who had fled into the Dakota Territory, were severely chastised. Thus, Minnesota and her governors bore double burdens during the Civil War, her share in subduing the Southern re

bellion, and her conflict with Indian foes on the West.

During his two terms in the Senate, ending in 1875, Ramsey was the chairman of important committees for a part or all of the twelve years, including the committees on Revolutionary Claims, Revolutionary Pensions, Territories, and Post-Offices and Post-Roads. He was greatly interested in efforts to secure cheaper international postage, for which he visited France in 1869. The improvement of the Mississippi River, government aid to the Northern Pacific Railroad, and the extension of trade with Manitoba, also occupied much of his attention.

Four years of private life ensued, and were followed by a year and a quarter of further public duty, in 1879 to 1881, as Secretary of War, this seat in the cabinet of President Hayes being occupied by Mr. Ramsey as the successor of the Hon. George W. McCrary, of Iowa.

The only subsequent federal service of Governor Ramsey was during the years 1882 to 1886, on the Utah Commission, of which he was chairman. His wife died November 29, 1884; and his home in St. Paul, built in 1870-72, was afterward under the care of his daughter, Mrs. C. E. Furness. There he passed the later years happily in the discharge of many minor duties, public and private, being a familiar figure in his almost daily visits to the business parts of the city. During many years, he was president of the local Society for the Relief of the Poor, and was well known for many unobtrusive acts of hearty kindness and aid.

During all the period of fifty-four years of his connection with this Territory and State, he was a leading spirit in the Minnesota Historical Society, which was organized in 1849, the first year of the Territory. He was its first president, from 1849 to 1863, when he went to Washington as Senator, and was again its presinent during the last twelve years of his life.

Inheriting from his Scotch and German ancestry a strong moral nature, Governor Ramsey gave liberally of his means and time for the work of the Presbyterian church in St. Paul, which was founded, in 1855, by the historian, the Rev. Edward D. Neill, called the House of Hope Church. He was a member of its first board of trustees, and continued as a trustee ever afterward, excepting an interval of three years during a part of his first Senatorial term.

He is commemorated by the name of the county which includes St. Paul, the capital of Minnesota; and his life-work is a strong part, like a corner-stone, of the foundation of this great commonwealth. He died at his home, after an illness of a few weeks, on April 22, 1903.

ΟΝΙ

NE reason why the executive form of gov. ernment of the District of Columbia is so little known outside of the District is that it is of such recent creation. Its twenty-fifth anniversary comes in the present month of June. It is interesting to note that until 1871 Congress provided no general executive government for the entire District of Columbia. The city of Washington had a government, the city of Georgetown had a government, and, prior to the retrocession of the Virginia side of the District, in 1846, the city of Alexandria had a government, like those of other American cities,-with mayors and councils elected by the people,-while the counties of Washington and Alexandria, comprising those portions of the District outside of the city, had their separate governments, also elected by the people.

Congress had created a judiciary for the District of Columbia in 1801. But the first executive government for the District was the territorial form of government of 1871 It provided a governor, a legislature, a board of public works, a board of health, and a Delegate in Congress. The Delegate in Congress and the lower house of the Legislature were elected by the people. The governor and the other officials were appointed by the President of the United States. There were two governors, Henry D. Cooke, a brother of Jay Cooke, and Alexander R. Shepherd. It was under the territorial form of government that Alexander R. Shepherd, first as the most active member of the Board of Public Works, and afterward as governor, began the improvement of the city of Washington.

In 1874, Congress abolished the territorial form of government, and provided for the temporary government of the District by a commission, which, coöperating with Congress and the citizens of the District, produced the Act of June, 1878, called by the Supreme Court of the United States the Constitution of the District of Columbia, providing, according to its terms, a "permanent form of government" for the District of Columbia. The agreement between the citizens of the District and Congress embodied in this organic act, commonly called the compact of 1878, included the surrender of the suffrage by the citizens and the promise by Congress that thereafter half the expenses of the maintenance and development of the national capital, theretofore imposed entirely upon the comparatively few residents of the District of Columbia, should be met by the national government,—which owns more than half the real estate,--the other half

to be paid by the taxpayers of the District. This arrangement has given general satisfaction, and is far superior to anything that went before. For sentimental or other reasons, some of the residents of the District would like to

have the suffrage restored. But the good government maintained under the Act of 1878, which has been secured largely by the elimination of partisan politics through the abolition of the suffrage, is in such shining contrast to the bad government of many American cities that the intelligent public opinion of the District is generally opposed to any material change. Pub lic opinion, not being hampered by the machine," the "boss," or the party organ, is so potential in the District of Columbia as to warrant the claim that it is conspicuously a government by public opinion. In the quarter of a century of the District's present form of government, there has been no charge, even by its enemies, of bribery, blackmail, or other corruption. such as seems characteristic of American mu nicipal government, and the results of the work done show that it has been honest and efficient.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are the executive government of the national capital. The Congress of the United States, under the Constitution, exercises "exclusive legislation" over the District of Columbia, but neither executive nor judicial functions. The commissioners recommend legislation and appropriations to Congress, and are consulted about all bills and appropriations for the Dis. trict. The President of the United States is not named in the Constitution in connection with the Federal District, nor has Congress imposed upon him any duty in the government of the District, except to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the commissioners and the judiciary. The President is not charged by law with any part of the administration of District affairs.

The commissioners are not the successors of the mayors of Washington and Georgetown or the Levy Court of the County of Washington, all elected by the people, and dividing between them the executive function, but of the governors of the District of Columbia, the first executive officers of the entire District, who came into authority when Congress, in 1871, provided, for the first time, an executive government for the entire District of Columbia, the governors, like the commissioners, being appointed by the Presi dent of the United States. The governing and executive body" is what Attorney-General Griggs

termed the commissioners, in an opinion to the President, on April 26, 1898, holding that, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (Barnes case, '91, U. S. 540), the District of Columbia is a municipal corporation proper, as distinguished from a corporation established as an agency of the government creating it, and that therefore its officers and employees are not officers and employees of the general government of the United States, but of the District of Columbia, so that the President cannot extend the provisions of the Civil Service Act to the District of Columbia government.

The character of the executive government of the District of Columbia is well shown by the comments of the three Washington daily newspapers. all independent, in politics and otherwise, on the recent reappointment of the chief executive officer of the District of Columbia, Henry B. F. Macfarland, the president of the Board of Commissioners. Three years ago, President McKinley persuaded Commissioner Macfarland to take this place because of his interest in civic and philanthropic affairs. It was President McKinley's own idea. as he said, for Mr. Macfarland was not a candidate, and at first declined; but finally he accepted, and the appointment met with general approval.

Commissioner Macfarland was not a candidate for reappointment; but President Roosevelt, two months before the term expired, without solicitation from anybody, and without consulting Commissioner Macfarland, nominated him to the Senate, which the next legislative day unanimously confirmed him. This was taken as recognition of the work done for the District and an invitation to continue. The approval of the people was reflected in the unanimous commendation of the newspapers. Such approbation might be given naturally by a partisan organ to one of its own party, but would not be given by an independent press without good reason.

The Washington Post said, among other things:

President Roosevelt has paid a distinctively high compliment to Hon. Henry B. F. Macfarland in reappointing him Commissioner of the District of Columbia two months or so before the expiration of his first term. It was assuredly the proper thing to do, and Mr. Roosevelt has disclosed foresight as well as wisdom in doing it.

.

The Post gives its cordial approval to the President's action, and congratulates Commissioner Macfarland upon this notable recognition of the services he has so well rendered to the District.

The Washington Star said, in the course of its editorial:

The reappointment of Commissioner Macfarland two months ahead of the expiration of his term is a deserved compliment to that official, whose services during the past three years have warranted the consideration of no other possibility than his continuance in office.

The commissioner has served the District admirably in every respect. Standing for progress, for the proper adjustment of the relations of the District and the federal government, for the material welfare of the people of the capital in every line, he has worked hard throughout his term, both in his administrative capacity and in his representation of the District's interests at the Capitol, and he not only deserves this compliment, but the District is entitled to a continuance of his eminently acceptable and valuable services.

And, finally, the Washington Times said:

In his first term as guardian of District interests, Mr. Macfarland amply demonstrated the possession of all those qualities which go to make the successful administrator.

Endowed with courage, insight, energy, and breadth of judgment, his influence on the District Board has been in every way stimulating and helpful. Keenly interested in the city's growth and welfare, and giving an active support to every movement looking to local expansion and improvement, he has been for three years past a notable influence for good in our municipal life, and his continuance in office for another term is cause for the sincerest satisfaction and congratulation.

We heartily applaud the reappointment, and wish the senior commissioner in his new service in the District building a success even more conspicuous-if such a thing be possible-than that which has marked his first and just completed term.