Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-06-07

t niu although MIR Rivcs suggests that gent oman who
happened to hcar the financial part OF nib thinks
mt Us puDished 1t contains some udds nda Iiss,ire the
gentleman and his informant that every ficraof In. Is,
pies, winch refer directly to his own was satt or read
IN my place truly not with any 'syery onchak Ing pow
er Oh eocution Without which, the pentlc,n,n womb
nave us SUPPOSE that he neither listen nor seak-bu
WIN as much planncss and dstinctness as seemed TO me
ues' .ted to such an imPoc task; for my tbos were
iio' mere fancy SKETCH but Were, i'm truth dry and
'peose DETAILS drawn out" from official records The
r 'ao'es inserted were upon my table belde me, pro-
ory as published, and the results stated without. then
gong through recital of them-By adycrir to the a.
extract from the speech, and his reported correction
IL VII, be seen, what foundation there was for his SELF
compacent assertion. that when he listened IN mo far
"eA' ne soon had occasion to set me rph as to inv
misconcepon of some of his remarks IL Will shew prs-
cisoy' with what success he ayaed himself Of the occa-
SION TO SCI me right. Ii to detect HIMSELF in
OF Two errors involving millions in ar,ount in re-
a!ion to the ordinary expenditures of Mr. Jafersons adj.
,straon as may be by reference to the Laws of
e onted States vol D page So and in the amount of
the ordinary expenditures of government ,be present
e as Is proved by reference estimates from the
i,edsHy department. for the service of the year He
may Wen be credited in the declarations that he did not
necessary to inict upon himself the irksome task
Oh Improving any stich farther occasions
Ahu now with what docs the gentleman quarrel? He
say Oh my statements, when analysed they do not con-
nC WIN statements made by hmye their results are
acuIated 70 lead the mind to different conclusions =
g' ne adds; have said, that, when analysed, they
by me- Rivcs difieren, OF r, nG n'ae
owing to the selection Of different dir,;oas az time for
aWerom items IF expenditure undcr the same gcacAai
hed" And again. he says &c He (Mr B J endeavoured
!" parry their effect by different arrangement of time
ana AGAIN but he insists upon Il different apporton-
'eH OF llem as to time" And again-s the only loop
TO nans doubt on is, whether the year 1926 to be
put down to Mr. Adams or Mr. Monroe -. Here Che
says hes TIC point Of discrcpancy" &c. &c
dd not indeed think it would have required letter
hali so long that of Mr. Rves to have satisfied any per-
te TACT time endeavourcd state that with
dlsnctness, and to give reason for my arrangement
ana was wiling to leave the nearer reader judge be-
tween us But the gentleman thinks the case requires
re-satng and reargung Although this point is not the
rst IN order in the letter. it makes so great figure there
at brevty may best be consulted by at dsposing
Il will not be denied that the general purpose of that
part OF the gcntleman's speech intended shew that
he present administration is now prodga is disposed
u DE more prodlga In its expenditures than the preceding
The object of my reply was to controvert that position
and am glad he admits in relation to my statements
THEIR results are calculated to lead the mind to different
conclusions from his own Their purpose would not
otner"lSe nave been answered One mode oiproo seec
Tea by the gentleman, to state the appropria
yea at inherent periods, as general criterion" for zap
PloAhahg to the amount eTpended The 0pprO-
P'ea on IKE estimates Of the Erccutioe edm0uRt sup
P0Se0 oy he ErccniDe cang for be netsssarY to
appropriations are evideIoe of expen-
ue or OF intention to expcnd, against any ether admin
strauon than that which calls for the amount and ap-
proves the laws, by which the thus set apart
Is tere man. into whose head idea can be beaten
VINO would controvert this What appropr atoms then
are thus to furnish evidence for against the present adj
ninstraton? My answer s-all those which they have
demanded and all those the laws for which the President
by his signature, has approved The only appropriations
answering this, are of the years 1896 Z, ana g. Who
demanded the appropriation of1o25 Who approved the
law making 1t! Who had diverted the measures and in
CURED the liabilities which rendered those suns necess
ny and who actually controlled the disbursement of the
same Tor the hrst sixth part of the term 1T Mr. Adj
am predecessor But we are asked Could any thing
De more unjust than to hold Mr.. Monroe after he bad
gone out OF Office, responsible for expenditures of public
money by his successor ?" When that Question shall
IL m nah n.
scented by the statements of either speech He is answer
able tor the character Of economy prodgaity of those
expenditures so far they incurred bv his own
easuresand his for such disbursements
as were not contemplated and made necessary by the
former. y ~
But let us not be misled by the gcntemans facility in
turning rom appropriations to expenditures Whatever
impression his language may have made upon the mind
nc does not intend TO say that those SYNONYMOUS
or tha IN charging Mr. Monroe with appropriations as
indicative of his opinion of the expenditures necessary
that you make him responsible any thing more 1t
TO be hoped that the gentleman had not by such inter
hgng OF terms rendered the subject mystical as to
nave deceived himself This is what he asks that an
appropriation, which had been made-he purposes to
winch 1t was to be applied, dccreed and all laws relative
10 IL passed under former administration should be la
Ken as proof that the administration which should fol-
low, would be Prodiga' Now do agree with the gen
Lca mat 1t ought to be deemed " an insult to tho u-
uerSldng OF the least wise of his constituents to aroue
such question to them for moment
but there is another ground which Mr. Rives con-
eus that the appropriations under consideration made
III oo were not Mr. Monroes, and that is because Mr.
Adams was then Secretary of State and because the
appropriations of 1925 for foreign intercourse were in fact
made upon on estimate furnished by Mr. Adams at time
100, when MIR. Adams must have known that in all hui
man probability he was to be President And am char
ged win error IN the assertion, that Mr. Adams had no
more TO do with the appropriations of that year than his
successor he gentleman caunot have taken all the
trouble OF ms letter. upon the supposon that from the
abundant stores of his information he was Communicative
any very Reo lntelgence when nc states that ME- Adj
ans was then Secretary of State and that the appropr
tions were as usual made npon estimates furnished bv
num- or that these facts contradict at all the assertion
winch made, In the only sehse in which its connexion
would allow ii to be understood that Mr. Adams no Presi
dent could in way be responsible for the purnoses for
whch thosc estimates were required and of course not for
the amount of them The President when the n,,nber
ana character OF the foreign missions are Determined r
cures me Secretary to furnish estimate of the ano,nt
they VIII cost and he responsible for this s
being great or SMALL any further than that the President
may voluntarily act upon his advice than is the s,bor
Ornate officer of bank for the kind or amount or noner
discounted by tie Directors. But, saws the gentleman
mr. Adams knew, when he made the estimate that he
was 10 be PreStdem'-Takc that to be the fact and
woud give nm no power by the estimate to include or
GAcuue mission, more less, than the President had
9eISrhhhed But In these dSys of conflicting statements
gh pcrsonages should not commit their friends by b,stv
uecaIatos III the assertion of the gentleman be trc
mat MI Adams when he furnished that estimate knew,
mat ne was to be President the affidavit mem for Tho
contract bargain and corrupticn story must ehfrcl
new Vamp' their whole testimony uDon tcf s,tb;cct
ior by the records of the department it toi t