this man elected to fill the vacancy the successor arranged to have the witness assist in making the bond. "Other gentlemen hesitated to go on the bond unless I would go there and be responsible for the running of the office." The man was prevented from taking office so nothing came of the arrangement. On the whole such first-hand material as I have been able to find does not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of officials, especially as to his footnote statement about their dishonesty; neither does it give the impression that they were worthy, as a whole, of the important positions they occupied. If Evans, as described by Rhodes, following Garner, was not typical, neither was Bruce. Mr. Lynch gives figures for 1875 and 1907 on financial matters and on the basis of these claims that the profligacy of Reconstruction finances is not proven. The manifest unfairness of taking figures for 1907 may be passed over; but the necessary basis of comparison must be wider than this. Nor do his conclusions agree with any others that I have seen, nor, which is more important, with other statistics. Both those of the census or those given annually by Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia lead to other conclusions. Just as an illustration of what is said on the other side take this statement, which seems to be that of the land tax. This was 1 mill in 1869, 5 mills in 1870, 4 mills in 1871, 8-1/2 mills in 1872, 12-1/2 mills in 1873, 14 mills in 1874, 9-1/4 mills in 1875, 6-1/2 mills in 1876, 6-1/5 mills in 1877, 3-1/2 mills in 1878. Another point that should be considered is that Mr. Lynch confines his figures to state finances; while it is for local finances that the Reconstruction government of Mississippi is most severely condemned. Conceding a point in this case, he says: Mr. Lynch is correct in saying that the Mississippi senators at the time of the state election of 1875 were Alcorn and Bruce. Pease had been succeeded by Bruce on March 4 of that year. Pease opposed Ames but he was no longer senator.