Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-06-06

So where the total expendi-
,ure, for 1902, /. stated at SI3,276, OsI "a
aud the payments ON account Of the
public debt, 1888 .o0i 10
,eavng for the ordinary current
expenditure S3,737,O7y >.
f'he second sum was obtained from an authoii.-
which the gentleman himself " III not question, tl
last annual Treasury report, in which, the wi,oi..
expenditure for 1926 is stated at S2lI03l 9S 10
and the payments on account OF
the public debt, Sll,O4l,O ~
leaving for the ordinary current
expenditures, ,SI3,062,4l6 27
Both oithese sums, as well as the classification
OF expenditure adopted by me, are farther warrant
ed by the table, complied from official doc UNI nts
| ana annexed to the report OF the Committee OH
Retrenchn,ent, (See Rep. No. 259. y. S0.) and al
50 by the statements contained IN the counter re
port submitted by he minority OF That committee,
(See Rep. No. 259, z. l3I, l32, l3i) Where,
| then, would ask, except in the inventive imagi-
nation, or reckless assertion OF the gentleman iron
New Hampshire, is the evidence OF thu " two er-
| rors involving millions in amount. which lie says
It appears from my own correction OF him, CON.
m,ted III relation to the expenditures OF Mrjefter
som and oil the present administration?
But will now proceed to what is the giSt of the
contro versy between the gentleman hom New
Hampshire and myself, the comparative etpeyidi.
f1es OF the present and late Admnstra during
equal pc RODS oil time, anu foi certain specified OBJ
Jeets under the control OF executive discretion
am glad 10 find that the gentleman has not chang
cd the issue between US, as think he would have
been 81 ad 10 have done, II he could have anjicipat-
ed the evidence which is now in possession OF the
public upon The subject. But there can be no mo
vel assignment or departure as the LAWYERS
call it now. The gentleman admits that the ques-
ton between us substantially this: Have the
penditiires oil the present Administration exceed ed
those Of the late Administration Tor the obie cts in
question, OF not! 4 afiii med that they had, and
as prtnaa Jdcie evidence of the fact, exhibited
comparative statement oil the appropriations for
these objects during two equal terms OF 3 years
der the late anu present administrations, showing
considerable eTceSS the side of the present
Administration. Al the same time did not pretend
that the appropriations afforded certain and pre-
else evidence of the actual expenditures but
thought that they might be fairly resored TO- in the
absence oil other proof, as general criterion for
approXimating the ainounts.expended. The gem
tleman from New Hampshire, on the other hand,
contended that the expenditures OF the present had
not exceeded those OF the late Administration, and
presented several comparative statements, the re-
suit OF which was, IN each case, considerable ex-
cess of expenditure the side Of the late Admin
Observation-Disclosures results" as he called them
8 In favour oil the present Administration" and
such, he added, sc presented by every
view OF the subject founded upon facts, and not
conjecture and supposition.'
The issue between us, then, was distinctly Join
ed upon this question OF Jdct-whether the ec-
pendituTes OF the present have exceeded those oil
the late Administration, or not; and the dppyopria-
tiOns were resorted only as erdence lea,iing by
presumption and approximation, TO the amounts dc-
tudhy expended. A the fact has since been as
certained by the investigation of committee spe-
cially charged with the enquiry 0he Committee
on Retrenchmcnt,) the question which the gem
tleman from New Hampshire has SO deliberately
discussed, as to the fitness and suficirncy of the
evidence, ceases to be of any practical interest
Whether an appropriation made DIT the close OF Mr..
Monroes administration, is, is not evidence OF
expenditure" as The gentleman calls it, against
Mr.. Adams, is wholly immaterial, when we know
directly and positively, what Mr.. .4da:as's er-
penditures were. The report OF the Committee
just alluded to, shews from Official documents
furnished 6y the Executive Departments them:
sefucs the precise amount of expenditures, and ut
terly Frustrated the ingenious hypothesis fondy
constructed by the gentleman fiom New Hamp-
shire, while it sustains, with remarkable coinci-
dence and uniformity, the conclusion l had form
ed from comparison OF the appropriations to the
actual expenditures of the late and present AID.
mnstraiions. 1t will he seen from that report that
in relation to every one of the Objects embraced in
my comp arative statement the expenditures of the
present have largely exceeded those of the late
administration, and that too i'm ratio of increase
varying as little as could have been expected from
that OF the appropriations; in some instances, the
excess in the expenditures being greater than that
i'll the appropriations, and vice versa.
In regard TO the expenses of Foreign Inter-
course, both stated and contingent, which have
formed the principal topic Of controversy between
the gentleman from New Hampshire and myself,
you will find from the report, Up. g. that these
expenditures, including some others OF minor cha
racter, m ade through the Department Of State,
stated as follows:
Late Administration Present Administration.
1922 1929