Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-08-25
Frn fs< Gastsk sftbe Uxiffd Stafss.
MANAGEMENT OF THE SINK
ING FUND.
frprcIupED.)

TO the law by the gentleman Who sHos1s
the rcfolution for inqu;ing into the ma
nagement of the linking fand, be It re-
menbered, tecretary Gailatin has ad
vensu,ed no fay, :" IF it was adopted It
mot follow, that there did not exit any
authority whatever 10 the commissioners
of the fialsing fund to provide in time Tor
the payment OF the Dutch debt. For
this (meaning the claule in the third fec
ton of the att) is she only claufe which
authorizes the commilioners to make any
payment other than for the payment OF
intereft and principal falling due that
year. And he afterwards adds. (" X
is hardly neceGary TO dwell any Longer on
the manifold abfurdities which NUT flow
from this aiumed contribution" Such
is the ftyle Of triumph in which he has
chofcn to fpeak. 1t is q fyle which i'll
becomes Albert 1Gallatin in comparing
himfelf with the mover ofthe refolution.
Its lyle which iii becomes an execu-c
tive officer, who adventures to aficrt what
is in direct contradiction to his own Official
report.
If there be any validity IN the argu-
ments,iwhich he has hazardcd about " pro-
yiding in time for the payment of the
Da.ch debit" it moa be founded on the
opinion that the annual appropriation for
one year could not be legally anticipated
by advancing apart in preceding year.
But is fuch an opinion admiaible? When
the law has charged certain inaalments
Of foreign debt on the annual fund <soE a
particularsyear, could it be intended that
the ftipulated fun ihould nos be feaionably.
remitteds Or could it be intended to,
prohibit fuch advances on account Of the.
annual fund, as might be requifte for
effetting the remittances in proper time ?
Did fecretary Gal!stin never hear of a
necefary implications when the main
purpofe Of law is explicitly afcer,ain-,
ed In relation to this topic, however,
there are other considerations which de-
ferve particular attention. Secretary
Gallatin, let it be repeated, has con.
hdently advanced the Doctrine, that the
claufe which he has recited from the third
fiction Of the act, is the only part of
the law which "eRs any authority what
ever in the commit oncrs Of the linking
fund TO provide in time for the payment.
Of the Dutch debt" On the sd of March,
1903, he had forgotten the letter which.
he addreGed to The chairman of the CON-
mittce of ways and means on the gift Of
March, lSoa He then appeared to know
that the law had gone 70 far in empower.
ing the commifioners to make feafonable
proviGon for any Stipulated payments as
to give an authority for !" borrowing any
fums requihte for the payment ofany In
ftalmcnts. or parts of the public debt,
which may become DUE
So far is this authority from being taken
away or diminished, by the act Of the 29th
of April, 1902, that it is explicitly recog
nized by proviso in the 4th section. Nor
is this all. The act contains various pro-
visions which have reference to the Dutch
debt in particular. 1t gives authority
for purchasing bills of exchange or any
other kind of remittances, for the purpose
Of discharging the interest and principal of
said debt Has secretary Gallasin re-
membered to forget the 5th section of the
a6ti Or did he suppose, that bis explana-
tory letter would destroy all recollection
of the statements contained in his official
report relative to the sinking fund? Exa I
mine that report! You will there End, 1
that in 1902, more than seven hundred
.shousaad dollars Of the annual fund for
1905, were anticipated. The sum was.
advanced from the treasury, in addition to
the whole sam OF 100000 dollars ap.
propriated for the year 1902. This ad-
vance was not made under any clause in
the third section of the act. Was it then.
wholly unauthorized by law Or is Sc
creta.y Gallatin's explanatory letter at