Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1835-02-14

ed with an inquiry into Executive patronage. !
He was Chairman of the Committee in 1926, !
which had this subject under investigation
He, even at that early PERIOD took the strongest
ground against Executive Patronage and por
trayed in the most vivid colors the dangers |
which threatened our institutions and liberty
And now when it has been demonstrated, that |
patronage has more than doubled, and when it |
has been shown that the danger to which we
were exposed from this enormous increase is of
the most alarming character, he rises in his
place, and instead of aiding the application of
some efficient remedy, he makes the most siren
uous efforts to distract and divert the public at
tention, by entering into an untmey party in
Qury into the cause of this increase of patron
age NV surprise does not stop here The ma
ture Of the remedy which he proposes against
this alarmsng growth OF Executive patronage
which he dare not deny is no less eXtraordna
nv than the contrast between his course in 1926
and now He gravey proposes as remedy
for the disease, that the surplus revenue shall
be expended on Notifications along the coast!
Where has the Senator been for the last two or
three years? Has he not been in his seat?-
Has he not been Chairman of the Committee OF
Military Affairs, and has he not been silent on
the subject of participation all this time, al
though he has yearly witnessed millions OF mo-
ney wasted on useless and unnecessary objects
of expenditure? Is he sincere? How then can
he justify his long silence upon this subject
which he now holds out to be Of such immense
importance? Is he not sincere? How can he
justify his acting such part in the face OF the
Senate2
But feeling the dilemma in which he was plac-
ed between his past and his present course he
has undertaken, with the boldest assertion, not
to say offensive, to deny that there will be any
surplus revenue, 10 anticipate which, he has
pronounced to be not only wild and visionary,
but perfect hallucination. After such strong
! a. wOnli a 20 pyp
demonstratve proof of gross and palpable er
ror in the estimate of the future increase, which
the committee has presented. Has he shown any?
No, he has not even attempted il. He has not
even made an effort to point out single error
either in data or conclusion. On what then
does he rely to justify his bold and offensive as
sertion2 He relies upon that which is natural
to one standing on his party conneXion-l was
about to use an expression which would appear
| harsh but will refrain. He relies upon author
| ity-on the authority Of the Secretary of the
Treasury, and he gravely tells us here in debate
what he, Levi Woodbury., as he calls him. au-
thorsed him to state for the information of the
Senate. | must be permitted to express my sur
prise said Mr. c., that the Chair permitted the
| disorder of communicating thus officially, by
Senator in his place the opinion OF. one OF tie
secretaries
Mr. c.. said have not even taken the trouble
to ascertain what is the opinion of Mr.. Wood
bury, for must say that his report, neither as
| to manner or matter seemed to be entitled to
! any extraordinary respect. But what says this
secretary? At what does he estimate the in
come ofthe year. Why sir, he estimates ii at
almost at the precise sum estimated by the COM
mittee. 1t is true he does not acknowledges a
balance or at least but small one at the end of
the year. bnt why so? simply because he has
raised the expenditure to the income as great as
as it is, and because he has chosen to charge
Latte bo ial ltin at he. #
the year, which usually amount TO several mil.
lions OF dollars.
No one knows better than the Senator from.
Missouri, the fallacy of bringing forward these
unapplied approprations--thatt they run on from
year to year without much variation; and he
has again and again demanded the interpreta-
ton placed on the sinking fund act Of 1916, Oh
the ground that these unapplied appropriations
were taken into the estimate contrary to the in
tent of the act and which in lis consequence
kept useless uneXpended sum in the treasury
of five or six millions OF dollars to the heavy loss
of the community He now chooses to forget his
denunciaiions and ayails himself of the error
which he formerly so severely condemned-an
error which now represents the Treasury as al
most deficit, when the Senator well knows that
had distribution been authorised at the end of
the last year, six millions might have been safe
ly distributed.
In his eagerness to show that the committee
! had over estimated the income, he has fixed up
on the years 1S4l--42, when, according to the
Compromise &C: the heavy reduction in the du-
ties are to take place. In reply, have 3nt
single remark to make. The Senator ought 10
have known as member ofthe Committee, that
those years were not taken into the estimate
That the calculation ofthe Committee terminal
ed with the year 1S41, when the biennial re-
ducton Of one tenth ceased-tiIl which year, it
estimated that the average sum at the DISPOSE
ton ofthe Government compromising the bank
stock and the present surplus in the treasury,
would be nine millions Of dollars. Not on the
supposition, as he would have the Senate TO be-
lieve, that the nnual expenditure would be
nearly twenty millions Of dollars as estimated by
the Secretary, but that il would be reduced to
less than thirteen millions.
The only question then that remains is wheth- |
er the estimate to what the expenditure ought to
be reduced, rests on substantial basis? For
this purpose the Committee selected the expen- |
diture of 1923 as the basis of their calculation
the Senator from Missouri was then a member |
ofthis body, and | appeal 10 him (said Mr. c. !
to say whether he was not one Of those who at
that time pronounced the expenditure to be ex
travagant.