The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1828-05-15
In ls22, als3,O0o In 1870. S2l3OoD
ls23, $4,000 1876, III 900
1921. $4,000 1877, 1871 0G0
40 mo Panama.


I.F#
Making an excess on Tire side 81 The pfs.eut
Administration, OF sl76,0oU-a which. sapposrl
coitcsponded, prteiSeiV. with HE result Of my
statement But, Oh looking back 10 thar state.
mrni tante p lind make tte tAcess of :, 10
800, instead of 10 800. Tins is, however. ac4
counted iur by Nj. Bartlett having peiprmif.
ted, IN casing up III" items Of appropriation fJr
lo25, The sum OF 5000. which Is an npuendaee
10 several Of those items Of The lhreest amount
AZ. lof instance, the appropriation for snlnrirs
aud Charge a. Ailairrs ia lluope. which IL ~
nO bDc hundred dollars. and beng given in LEI.
tcts, instend 81 figures the Soto mhY have been
eas,ly notwithstanding fhesu S5Oo, 10 the
mount gwen by him lor 1920, The excess ON the
SIDE OF the present administrations according 10
his data, rs exhibited above, corresponds prez
cscl it'll The result 6i my ktsiemeni | viii
observe. Om Of abuittpi c0uIio3l, that iu taking
hls statement Ion the yea 1897, / have pm The
sum At BlslOUo, m 1t was evidently intended to
be- aud as Il Must be-, 10 conform IT an 10 the
appropriation law, from which il j. iHkfn. L.
the speech al Mr. Bartlett, as printed ia thrueNs.
pnpcrs, by atypogtaph,ed etlor the figure
before the figure \, j. omitted. Bn he addition
made by HIM, requires aud sheVs hut he utcn.
died 10 put toc sum al . ldl 100, aud not sl $Bi.
OUo
thlnh must have satisfied you, lint 4ecord
ing 10 M. B0ritttfg 0trH dGfn If he VEN l8gI
be put 10 The account oil Mr Adams, n, u ought
The result Of my comparison bctwe the present
Administration, aud the one which Immediately
preceded Il, u precisely correct " The only
loop to hang n doubt on, - then !, whether the
ytar 1879, is 10 be put down 10 Nj Adams or ~
Me-. Noproe---or, in other words, whether Mr..
Adams Is To be held accountable Tor money ad
United 10 nave bern e3peHded under his admin
/ lssralfGH, Or whether that responsibility u 10
be shifted bHct upon Mr.. Moufoe, Who had
gone ouf OF ulbee, and OF COURSE had no con
uonl over the expenditure. ! should dremig
40 lhsu,il0 the understanding, ct the leasl wise
| 81 my constituents, 10 argue suCh a question -
! them, for moment.
/ lon Will perhaps, Wish 10 know how IL Is
that, differing as the part ieaiaT sums given IA
my statement do from those given by Mr.
Bartlett, should yet produce the same result
with hi, SUMS, As with mine, I will explain it
10 ynu. The difference betacen his sums g.
| mtne, IS an uniform one ia all'the years, aud
procetds from M uniform cause. Except for
/ toe year ia23, he has uniformly omitted, ia
I the amounts gwen 10y him for each year, On
/ item included in.lhe amounts given by ne lnr
all the years. lhe item allude 10, Is the az
preparation tor Tue salaries uf agents OF
/ claims, at London and Paris. That anproprl.
/ alton in 1923 wns $500, ard was, as NO
/ have seen, included IN The amount given by
/ Nh Bartlett tog. tlGat year, aud hence the a.
mount given w Mr.. Bartlett for llnt year
corresponds precisely, with TOE amount sta
ted by mG--bolh being S22.ohO But, IN CIV,
ing the amount for the subsequent Yeas, ho
has omitted this item ofapprnruaiioh, While
! have included it, and thus produced the DIS
Crepapcy between the particular suns given
by him Tor each 81 those years, and the suns
stated 10y Ine IN each year succeeding 1922,
this item of appropriation was regularly
u az. RI