Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-05-10
In 1872, $50, 000 In 1898, S2l3, 900
1923, $4,000 1896, $4,000
1924, lS9, $50 1927, Isl 900
'I'aran,a 10000
Z | tN,.,OH
9bll $50

Making an excess, on the side of the present
Administration, of SI.5 000--whch, | suppose
correspondent preciScty with the result ofmy state
ment.-But on looking back to that statement
(ante p.). find make the excess of SIZE, 800,
instead of Sl75, go This is, however, accounted
for, by Mr.. Bartlett having prctcrmitted, in casting
up the items OF appropriation for 1925, the of
$500, which Is an appendagc TO several OF
those items et the largest amount as, for in
stance, the appropriation for salaries and Charged
A1airss in Europe which is 40 600 fcc Hundred
doharS, and being given i'll letters, instead Of fl
cures, the $500 may have been easily overlooked
adding these $500, to the amount given by him
Tor 1928, the excess the side Of the present
Administration, according to his data, as exhibi-
ted above, corresponds precisely with the result
ofmy statement. | will observe, ont Of abundant
caution, that in taking his statement for the year
1877, have put the sum at 9lSl 600, as it was
evidently intended to be- and as it must be, tc
conform at all to the appropriation law from which
1t IS taken. In the speech of MIR. Bartlett, as
printed in the newspapers, by typographical err
ror, the hgure !, before the figure s, is omitted
But the addition made by him, requires and shews
that he intended to put the sum at Isl 900, and
not at SS1 900
| think mus have satisfied you that according
to IHr. Bdrt1ctfS 02cn da&n, if the year 1926 be
put to the account Of Mr.. Adams as it ought, the
result of my comparison between the present Adj
HIhlSuation, ana the one which Immediately pre-
coded it, is precisely correct. "The only loop
to hang doubt on" then, is whether the year
1879, is to be put down to Mr.. Adams or to Mr.
Monroc--or, in other words whether Mr.. Adams
is to be held accountable for money admitted to
have been C1ptnHcd under his administration, or
whether that responsibility is 10 be shifted back
upon Mr.. Monroe, who had gone out ofofficc, and
of course, had no control over the expenditure
] should deem ii an insult to the understanding,
ofthc least wise Of ny constituents, TO argue such
question to them, for moment.
You will, perhaps, wish to know how it is that,
differing as the particular sums given in my state
mcnt do from those given by MIR. Bartlett, |
should yet produce the same result with his sums,
ns with mine. | will explain it to you. The DIFF
ference between his sums and mine, is an uniform
enc, in all the years, and proceeds from an uniform
cause. Except for the year 1923 he has uniform
Iy omitted, IN TIE amounts given by him for each
year, an item included in tic amounts given by me
Tor all the years. The item aludc to- is the app
proprlation for the salaries OF agents Of claims al
London and Paris. That appropriation in ls23
was s., ESQ, and was, as we have seen, included
III the amount given by Mr. Bartlett for that year,
AID hence tire amount given by Mr.. Bartlett, for
that year, corresponds precisely, with The amount
stated by me-both being $50 900. But, in Civ
M the amounts for the Subsequent years. he has
oreittod this item Of appropriation, while have
Included Il, and thus produced the discrepancy
@>t" cen the particular. sums gwen by him for