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

eAuaIt, aeCtiiS the correctness OF the views pre-
viousy submitted by me, which do not consider
opsnto the most satisfactory reply shall forbear
to noice any other parts oft than those to which
he has directed attention by his own commentary ;
for, after having been worn down by .laborious
service OF six months in Washington, cannot
consent to give up the time which L had hoped
woulh be sacred to reposo and domestic ENJOY.
mcnts, even for the honor of controversy with
the gentleman from New-Hampshire.
The gentleman refers to a part of this extract.
I'm which he has undertaken to embody some re-
marks made by me for the purpose of correcting
him. to shew that instead of setting him right
IN his .misconception of me- L had /" detected
myself, IN breath, of two errors involving mil
lions in amount" Now, how is this matter
The extract shews, tesen taking it for authority
thatr,G gentleman made me to say that from
three or four millions in Jefferson's administra-
ton, our expenditures have increased i'm one
fourth OF a century, to twenty-five millions" 1
SAID no such thing, and therefore, rose to cor
rect the gentleman. There were two material err
rors In ms statement He made me to speak of
the tohotc' expenditures of the government. when
| had, In fact, spoken of the ordinary current ex
penditures only, as contradistnguished from paw
ments on account of public debt and he then
maze me to say that those expenditures under the
present administration, were twenty-five millions
when had stated that they were thirteen mil
mons. This appears from the gentIeman's own
evidence, and proves, that Notwithstanding his
bold, no less than "sclCcomplaccnt assertion, to
the contrary, that did set GO him right in his mis-
conception OF what Il had said, in two material
respects
But if you will refer to my own speech, which
ought, should think, to be as GOOD evidence of
what said as the speeches which the gentleman
from n. Hampshire is kind enough to make for
me. you will see that stated the ordinary cur
rent expenditures OF the government for the wear
ioVA (which was the first entire year of Mr. JEFF
erson'' administrator specifically at SO.
O79 81, and those of the present administration
ior the year 1896, (Which was the latest wear for
winch they had then been fully settled and as
certaIned) at Sl3,062,3l6 81 The first sun,
was oohlned both from Pitkn and Seybert. and
Is warranted by the authority to which the gentle
man himself has appealed, claws of u. S. vol. s
p S3,) where the total expenditure for 1902 is
stated at s5l3 ,276,0S4 81, and the payments on
account OF the public debt, S9,539, 0Ol 76 leav-
ing lol the ordinary current expenditure, So 1917
o'9 ". The second sum was obtained from an
authority, which the gentleman himself will not
question, the last annual Treasury Report in
which u. the whole expenditure for 1896 is
stated at S24, lob, 49S As, and the payments ON
account OF the pubic debt, $1I,04I .OS2 10
o.' n ior the ordinary current expenditure
- aS
the classification of expenditures adopted by me
are farther warranted by the table compiIcd from
oiflclal documents and annexed to the Report of
the Committee on Rctrenchment (sec Rep No
So9, p So) and also by the statements contained
In the counter-report submitted by the minority of
that committee, (see Rep. No. $50, D. I31. 1872
io4) Where, then, [ would ask. excepf in the
inventive imagination, or in the reckless asser
.ioh OF the gentleman from Newt Hampshire, is
.ne evidence OIL the two errors involving millions
III amount which, he says it appears from nv
own cofrecton OF nm, committed i'm relation
to the expenditures of Mr. Jeferson's and If tho
present administration.
But will now proceed to what is tho o,;st &C
the controversy between the gentleman from New
hampshire and myself, the comparative erDeudi
f"eS OF the present and late administration din
ring equal periods of time, and for certain sneci-
ned objects under the controul of executive dis
creton. am glad to find that the gentleman
mas not changed tile issue between us, as I think
ne would have been glad to do if he conId
nave anticipated the evidence which is now in
possession OF the public upon this subject. But
there can be no {" novel assignment" or "denar-
ture, asthe lawyers call it now. The gentleman
admits that the question between us was substan.
italy tins" have the expenditures of the present
exceeded those OF the late administration for the
oDJects In question, or not % affirmed that tbev
had, and as prlma iace evidence of the fact ex-
hibted comparative statement of the aDDroDri-
at'o"s Tor these objects during two equal terms Of
three years under the late and present admins
tratIon, shelving considerable excess on the side
OF the present administration. At the same time
did not pretend that the appropriations afforded
certain and precise evidence ofthe actual erDeDd-
TIRES, but thought they might be fairly resorted to
IN the absence OF other proof as general crite-
ron Tor experimenting the amounts expended =
Inc gentleman from New. Hampshire. on the
other hand coatcnded that the expenditures Of
the present had not exceeded those of the late
administration, and presented several compara.
tive statements, the result Of which was. in each
case, considerable excess Of expenditure ON the
side OF the late Administrations" triumphant re-
Suits as he called them in favour of the nrc.
sent administration" and such" he added ga
are presented by every view of the subject fonnd.
ed upon tactS, and not conjecture and SUPPOSE
ton"
The issue between us then was distinctly ioin.
ed upon this question Of fact, whether the cSDen.
d'tHeS oil the present have exceeded those Of the
Iatc administration, or not and the oDDrooyjo
tons were resortcd to only as cUidencc leading nv
presumption and approximation, to the amounts
ocfudtly etpc"dcd As the fact has since been
ascertaIucd by the Investigations Of a committee