Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-05-10
In 1923, S $4,000
1924, lS9 500
1925, 2l3,GOo
In 1896, SlS7,00Q
1927, $1,000
Panama, 10000
1923, 10000
4S4,5OO
4J11 .On0


leaving The expense of three last years s,27 600
less than 1he three las, appropriations OF the PEE
ccdng administration"
quote verbatim from the speech as printed both
in the journal and the Whia There are several
obvious inaccuracies on the face of this extract:
In the ilrst place. the gentleman from New Hanip-
shire, has coniounded two distinct parts of my
statement. III you look at the table in my speech,
you Will sec that first gave the collective amounts
OF the appropriations for the contingent expenses
OF the several Departments, and the CONTINGENT
expenses OF missions abroad and of foreign inter-
course, winch, for the three last years of Mr.
horoes administration, amounted to $3.50 BIS.
and, Tor three years Of the present administration
to S4l ,314, then stated 10 separate line the
0S@rfSdtc appropriations, both regular aid con-
uhgen', Tor iorelgn intercourse, during the same
periods, amounting, for the first term, to S15S'
o'O, and for the second, to S634,OO0 The scen,
teman from New Hampshire,' has by a SINGULAR
haiiucnation, taken the sums in the first part of
inc statement. instead of those in the second "a
representing the aggregate expenses of foreign in.
tercourSe; and then by another blunder has made
the difference between those sums S267 600 in
stead OF Sl33,O00. But | have nothing to do with
'ms' IL is not tor me to answer for the accuracy
either OF his conception or his arithmetic III
proceeds to say that tile " faacy or error of nv
statement is in putting to Mr. Adams one fcht
lS|o) OF the expenses incurred and provGrd for
before he came to the office :" and in rc.f,rn,;nn
my statement, he accordingly puts the Year IS2:3
10 the account OF Mr. Monroe instead of Mr. Adj,
ans. lie does not controvert the arionnts stated
~ me, (aithough there is little variance. which
VIII presently account for,) bit he insists pno,,
difierent aPportIorment of them, as to time bo.
tween the present and late administrations Hcr,
ne: me point 2t the discrspnacy
Now, Sir, will not tic common sense If crsr,
man IN the commiirity determine this matter A.
once Mr Adams came into Office on the 1tl a.,,
OF March, 1873, and the question is, whether tbe.
expenses OF that year, (ten months Of which fell
"ithin HIS administration, and only two r,ou,bs
WithIh Mr. Monrocs) arc most properly to he inf
Gown 10 the account of Mr.. Adams or Mr. Monroe
I'D making comparison between the two admins,
Tasohs, 1t became necessary to take entire caIen,
oar years as the basis Of The comparison. inasmnc
as all our financial statements and reports arc o
up with reference TO these established divisions ~
tnc. Inc obvious and natural allotment tboro
'0fe' III selecting equal periods of three wears Er
.nc comparison, was to put the years 1895; 96 g..
-, 10 the account Of the present administrator,
ana the three immediately preceding years n CO.,
Io>% 70 and ~, TO the account of the late adn,;,
,STaiIon' Could any thing be more nnipet tbon g.,
hod Mr.; Monroe, after lie had goue ont IF ofico
responsible tor expenditures of public none b.,
bis successor, t' "o"ey ny
But, W. Bartlett scys the onDronr;ot;o.. r.
$50 were made IN February Of thai ysa, Sc 'of
hr. Honfpe had gone out Of Office onJ 49,
ADAMS had nothing to do with maxim ,baso W.T.
preparations The reel practical c,iession "P
under whose administration Tic a,,a1 =, nov
wfTc m7dr but under hose aJminE;.