Bourborish In Missouri

I lie St. Louis Globe-Democrat prints 110 following comparlson of the progresa of Missouri with that of tlie nei"hborng states: The following table shows the rank amunx the sutlus of tue Union, in point of nopulatlon, of the Coinmonwealths tamed, as sliown by the United States censures in 1850, 1360, 1870 and 1880. „. 1850. 1860. 1870. 1880. i'ssoarl 13 8 5 5 Minors ii 4 4 4 '.1WI1 S7 S0 12 10 ansus SI 29 20 Minnesota XI 30 28 88 MU-hi-nn 20 16 18 Wisconsln ai 15 15 U Ivansiis was not admltted into tne Union I 11 tri 1 1S54. This is a very creditable exhibit for Missouri. In 1850 there were twelve tates of ttie Union more populous than liis. Sincc 1870 there have been only our. lts rclutive growth in population vas as rapiii, for illustratlon, as that of llinois in the thirty years utulor review, and between 1800 and 1880 its growr.li was still more rapid. In that period the ncrease of population in the states of lie Mississippi Vallpy wan marvolous, nd has not been equnled in any other qual period of tiine in any other counry under the sun. In tliis increase, as is lere shown, Missouri held a prominent ilace, and there are good reasons for tliis. t is near the center of the Union geojraphically, its mineral wealtli (coal, lead, ron, copper, etc ), is surpassed by that of very few of the states, and the fertility of ts soi! by none. Climate, too, with soil conspire to make it yield in abundance all of the agricultural and horticulural products of the températe zone, vith veiy many of those of the torïd zone. One great navigable river, the Mississippi, runs along its eastern borler, and another, the Missouri, forms its western boundary for about 200 miles, and runs through ts center. To none of lie thirty-eight states of the Union has nature been more lavish of its gifts than t has been to Missouri. We have shown that Missouri's growtli n population In the thirty years ending vitli 1880 was not exceeded by that of any other state in the union, and have nentloned a few of the reasons therefor. Now we will see whether its growth In wealth in that period has kept pace with ts increase in population, and how it compares with the growth of wealth in be other states named. The following s the wealth per capita of these states, based upon the estimated true valuation of the real estáte and personal property, as given in the census of the United States ior the years referred to: 150. 1880. 1870. 1880. Missouri f201 $424 $716 8 706 [Illnols 183 509 825 1,005 lowa 123 366 01 871 Kansas 292 518 677 Minnesota t 304 Ml 817 Michigan 15U 343 606 837 Wisconsln 134 353 666 737 Kansas not In the Union then. No record of Minnesota lor 1-50. This is a surprising exhibit. It shows ,hat the average wealth per inhabitant is ess in Missouri than in any state here mentioned exceptin Kansas, astatewhose mineral riclies are inliuitly less than ours, and where manufacturing is practically unknown. Even the agricultural state of lowa, which had only $33,9S7,8SG invested in manufactures in 1880, as couipared with $72,507,884 In Missouri, sursassed Missouri in wealth per inhabitant at that time. In the race of material greatness Missouri was tri 1850 anead of 111 of the states here mentioned which md a record in that year, but every one of thein had passed Missouri by 1880. Missouri increased its wealth per capita n thirty years only about three and onehair times. In the same period the irowth in Wisconsln was live and a half ;iines, and Michigan and Illinois each live and a half times, and in lowa over eight times. It may be urged that a deductlon should be made for the slave property owned by Missouri in 1850, which was destroycd by the rebelhon. But even ;h8 will not explain why that state has aeen beaten so badly by its neighboring ommonwealths in 'that time. The numjer of slaves owned in Missouri in 1850 was 87,422, which, at an average valuation for childreu, healthv adult and superanuated persons of $300 a piece, would amount to but $2,260,600, at a time wlien the total value of its property was estimated at 127,247,707. Nor will thts account for the tact that the wealth of Missouri per capita actually decreased in the decade between 1870 and 1880,'at the first of which dates slavery had been abolished about seven years. In the time when the value of Missouri properly per inhaibtant declined from $746 in 1870 to f706 in 1880, that of every other state here mentioned largely increased, and that of the countrv, as a wholc, ncreased from f780 to f870' What is tiie cause of the slow growth of Missouri in material riches in the last thirty years, and its actual decrease in riches per capita in the ten years ending with 1880? lts material advantages when mineral wealth is considered, are as great as those of Illinois, and greater than those of any of its other neighbors. No stupendous cyclone or cataclysm destroyed Missouri's wealth in the period under consideration. A greater scourge, however, than these has paralyzed its energles and wrecked the enterprising spirit of its peoplc. It is the curse of Bourbon ascendency. Population, indeed, (as we have shown, increased in spite of Bourbonism, but Bourbonism wreaked its revenge by keeping that population comparatively poor. Every state cited In our eomparison is republican except Missouri. That state alone is democratie. No honest, intelligent democrat will have the moral hardihood to contend that republicanlsm and prosperity and Bourbonism and poverty, as exemplified by the states here named, are a mere coincidence. More destructive of energy and business spirit than yellow fever or Asiatic cholera, and more devastating to property than an earthquake, Bourbonism Irns tastened itsdeadly grip upon the vitáis of the common wealth, and the advantages of geographical position, mineral riches, climate and soil go for naught. What has Bourbonism cost Missouri ? It has cost the difference between the per capita wealth of Missouri ($706) and thai of Illinois (l,005), which Missouri woulc now have if the republican party hat been in power In the state as long as the democratie party has been. This is jus i-I'.i',) for cach man, woman and child In the state, or $215,609,620 in all. Each individual In the state, oíd and young, has h:i been robbt'd of $299 by the Bourbon oligarchy as really and truly as i: those creatures had stolen it from htm by the aid of the bludgeon or the jlmmy And it is scarcely necessary to add tha it is to the interest of every individual ir the state that this ltouruon monster be drlyen from power.