Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-05-10


tha' given by me, because, in that instance on.
~, he inc"ded the appropriation for AGENTS
halaries, which. Tor that year, was a doubIe
allowance OF $4,000, in consequences, presume.
., mere having been no appropriation for tina,
object in the preceding year 1872. This bc;rm
The STATE OF the ease. it is obviors that the re-,
suit oil comparison betweeirthe two terms of
/ three years which took, will be the same whe
'hrr tins lien of appropriation lie included. or
excluded, the amounts appropriated for il dur
lug the whole OF each term being equal and ba |.
ancInS each other. In 1922, the first yea, EN-.
hraced IN my comparison, there was nothing n
propriated for tin 1923, sum of Ss. 00o. r.
III IL "A sum of 4, 900, making II total sum. for
he lIrst term OF three Years, of 3 900 In ga ell
OF the following years, 1925, 1876 and 1897.
there was a regular annual appropriation Of
$1,000, which For ,he whole term of three years
ais" amounted To 1900. The result of a com,
pArat've statement for these terms, therefore.
VIII DE the same, whether you include or exclude.
his item Of appropriation. provided it be uni.
ioImiy done in each year.
Before dismiss Mr.. Bartlett's statement in
relation To this branch of the subject | mast
make ono other remark upon it, which is this
that even taking his dicision of time, & throw
ing the year 1925 upon Mr.. Monroe's admins
lralion contrary To every dictate of reason an d
I"stce, The result Of his comparison is aliorer
'a'I"e'nns' in consequence of his suppression
of an important fact. In giving the smouu,
Tor foreign intercourse, for the service of the
present year, he puts down a sum of $40 OGO
only, ana then announces the result If hi. COM
paris"n IN these words:-'' leaving the erpcuse
oil the three last years" Nhe resent being one
oil them) S21 900 less than the three last an
preparations of the preceding administra ton
The Inference from which undoubtedly il. tina
TIL" sum "ts'l0, oOois all that the administration
can expehd for foreign intercourse during the
present year. But the fact is, as shown Inv a
document which, presume. Mr. Bartlett must
nave read, that there are, at the disposal of the
| administration, large additional sums, consist
ing of balances OF former appropriations, still
aPpfica6iets the expenses offoreicn intercourse
aud that these sums are actually included in the
| estimates Tor the service of the present year
For this fact, | refer TO the letter Of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury Of I'd January last, trans
hitting the estimates for the service Of The nre
sent year, being Doe. No. 40, in the serie, of
OF Executive Documents Of the present Session
OF Congress. From that Document, (paers "a
and 26) it appears that besides IN. sum of $40
600. mentioned by Ear. Bartlett, there is inclu.
ded in the estimates for the service of the pre
sent year a sum Of 100000 as still applicable
to what have called the stated expenses of for.
eign intercourse, and also, another sum appli.
cable to The contingent expenses of foreign in
| tercourse, the amount Of which is not there sta
| ted, but Which, from another Document
! (Report of the Committee on Expenditures
OF The Department ofStale, p. 9,) / find to be
Sfo,oi2-adi these sums 10 Mr.. Bariiett's
$4,000 and then, even upon his own favourite
| appointment OF fime, instead of ''leaviDc,o as
| lie says, the expenses OF the three last wears .
Chat is, 1926. 1S27 and 1929 1897 900 les.
than The three last appropriations Of the pre-
cednS administrations" they will be SlI9 $40
more
Ihave now done with Mr.. BariIett's compar.
'Son between The present and late Adminisfra.
ton, IN regard TO the expenses OF foreign inter
course, and think j must have satisfied every
candid and impartial mind, that the statement
made on that sub ject is warranted 10 The very
letter, by unmpcachable documentary autbori
~, and that Mr.. Barllct's statement, so IA,
from impugUing it, is itself full Of errors, from
beginning TO end. But the gentleman from n
II. has thought proper TO carry the comparison
! upon this subject back 10 The earlier periods ot
the governmcut, and has attempted TO show that
The present administration has not ONLY con
dncied the foreign intercourse of The couutr,
with greater economy tI,an It's immediate pre
decessor, but with far greater than even Wash
ingion or Jefferson, or the elder Adams, and for
'hat purpose. has brought up from Seyber'.
statistical annals, in formidable battle array
large masses and columns Of figures under The
head Of . Foreign Intercourse" during the ne.
RODS OF those administrations. There is sncl
gross ard ridiculous raIlacy IN this part Of tlc