Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-05-06
4s450O
$4,000

to.. $4,000 $4,000
eaVlng me expense OF three las, wears S27
tedng administration"
quote verbatim from the speech as printed n B
~ ,ne journal and tho Wing. There are seve
OBVIOUS inaccuracies on the face of this extract B.
'iic hrSt place, the gentleman from New Han
'"re, mas coniounded two distinct par,s of Z
sa ement. If you look n, the t,hIe j., ,,,, y.
You viii see that first gave the collectivc n,po
Oh 'he appropriations for the contingent exnay
oil the several Departments, and the contin@
expenses oil missions abroad and of torei,rn in5
COURSE winch, Tor the three last years of
honroes administration, amounted TO s2so ri
and Tor three years of the present adminisira,;on
2ii'o4. then stated in a separate line The b
SfeSMe appropriations, both regular and conf
7@i'' ior foreign intercourse, during the same |
l'as, amounting, for the first term, to S46s s,
ana Tor the second, to 1864 900. The gentler,s
rom New Hampshire has, by singular hal,
'inaton, taken the sums in the first mart of !,
statement, instead of those in the second as ron,
'eh'ing the aggregate expenses of foreign int
curse; and then by another blunder has made 4.
u,, ,e between those sums $267 900 instead
$io3'oO0. but have nothing 10 do with this. #
u not Tor me to answer for the accuracy ei,hnr a
MS conception or his arithmetic. He proceeds
say mat the 6 fallacy or error of NV statement
IN putting TO Mr.. Adams one year Us25l Of 4
expenses incurred and provided for, before ne car
10 the othee; and in e-foi ming NV st,t.rooa, +
sccordingly puts the year 1925 TO the acco,n,
hr. Monroe, instead of MIR. Adams H. does !
Cohtrovert the amounts stated by me (altbonl
mere Is little variance, which / will nrasen,
account lori but he insists upon different ann
"oiiicht Oh thein, as TO time, between the prese
ana az late administrations. Here lies the point
The discrepancy. f''
Now, Sir, will not the common sense of ev.
i'd' III the community determine this ma,ter s
once: MIR. Adams came into office ON the All II
Vi march, 1870, and the question is, whether n
a Inf (to.
within his administration, and only two mo-,
wi'hih Mr.. Monroe's,) are most properly TO he \
Gown 10 the account OF Mr.. Adams or MIR. Nonrl
IN making comparison between the two admin,
u"'ohs' IL became necessary to take enlir,. CALI
OAR years as the basis of the compari son ipasr,,
us all our financial statements and report ar 80
up with reference to these established divisions
uiHe' Inc obvious and natural allotment the,
,U'e' IN selecting equal periods of three wears
W., comparison, was TO put the years 1926 '26
10 'ne account OF the present adIninistrati
anu me three immediately preceding years to-,
iozZ, 20 and '24, 10 the account of the late adm;
isTation. Could any thing be more unjust than 4,
hoid MI Monroe, after he had gone ont of ofi;cs
Responsible for expenditures of public money JS
his successor. -
,s5 DHt, Mr. Bartlett says the appropriations %
30 were made IN February of that wear. beE3t,
MT. Monroe had gone out of office ana that m
ADAMS mad nothing 70 do with making these aDprn-
PriaaohS. The real practical question is moi I'M,
uer whose administration The appropriations ,rer,
Htde, but under whose administrator those ann,
pnations were dis5msed and erpended. and H.
bartlett presume, will hardly deny that th,',,
were expended by Mr. Adams
nut II he insists on raising the other question. :
van De found, think, contrary to his assertion m
VI, -1uains lad great deal TO do with making "A
appropriations Tor foreign intercourse in ls2SS
adams, let II Ne recoected, was Secretary of 81.
al '"e iihe those appropriations were made: al,
according TO the usage OF the Government, il h
neeoms matter OF course, to make all appropria
IONS lor me expenses OF foreign intercourse, ia!
pursuance o! estimates furnished by the Secrefa
~ Oh state. Hence, in the . estimate of au
propflaIons, proposed for The service of fI,
year 1872, and transmitted by the Secretary
u me treasury, to Congress, on the 10th dan,
u an OF That year. it is explicitly stated -under
M edu Oh I0TeaSH intercourse that the Secretaryj
" oiatc estimates, VIZ =: and then follows list
Items, all OF which were incorporated into the an
preparation law, which subsequently passed. in II.
precise language and order IL which thew wsX
enumerated and expressed, in the estimate of =
secretary OF State. This estimate may be see ~
we ID volume OF Executive Documents of the
oess 18th Cong Doc. No. 4I-Here tben =,
ind In the teeth OF Mr.. Bartlett's assertion tn
ne appropriations OF 1925, for foreign intercours
were IN TACT, made upon an estimate furnished y
Nlr' Adams, at time too, when Mr. Adams mn
idVe known that, in all human probability, he W /
oOe the President, who would have the exn,ud
ure OF these appropriations.
IN Whatever aspect, then, this matter is viewed
L clear that the year 1925 should be nut dow
Q Mr. Adams; and so, then will sliew, accoyt
P@ 10 mr.. BqriiefPs Otoh-dqfa, that the result 4
ny statement Is precisely correct mean to tai
ne sums given by MIR. Il. himself for each We;
except the year 1879, in stating the amount Of a
eigh intercourse appropriation for whicLeaz
Included an item, Which he has left -
mounts gwen by him for each of the ~ S
ne item alluds TO, is the 50 Salaries of 3< ~
nj Nf.rra Ir.
N appropriation oil $4,000 in the wear 1898
ms item Is left out in the amounts given by him -
very Other year, IL is clearly proper that it shou
e omitted also in the year 1923. The amount civ.
~ Dy hin, Tor that year, including the salaries
gems OF Claims at Paris aud London, is $50. 00O.-
jeiucting the appropriation for t..ose salaries J
90, which have already stated to.be @S. 90 d
nc Total amount OF foreign intercourse afiiopra-
ions, Tor that year would, then, stand at s7i 600
n'' al OF $52,OOO.--As he has not embraesd n 8
ear 1877 Ia his statement, we must get the aniou.
o That year from the approximation laws the
elves, from reference 10 which II appears d
appropriations for diplomatic intercourse y 81
@fOye, in that year, amounted 10 $3.50 900
Q q Of Con 1922, p &c. chap. I'D and the az
'.lor' Tor diplomatic intercourse wilh Sout
1cnca, 20 100000, Gee acts Of Con. 1922.
hap % making total sum Of s51S3, 900.
Taking, then, Mr.. Barlctt's own data, corf
'r ono year, (i5z5) as above, and TIC appropr
vs. tn mselvcs, for another year, G922J nOtj y
raced In his statement, and putting fhey eoy
s F." 0Ught tn m. .fdams, the comparison
"ecn me late and present administration, ia rel
on to this matter, stands thus
in 1922, Sl53 900 ~ 1875, S2l3,000
1925 10000 1871 $4,000
10000 Psnam
SIG 500 S621 $50
Making du exc ss on he side OF the present a ~
.fiaff ffufs Of r, uln .f,a.,...