The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-06-13

Il
alone do We such information, in direct opposition
| to all official statements. Having examined this do
cument, No 10 with some attention 10 its details
IND mat u does not embrace the 100000 appIopri
ated by the act of 9th September 1871, which sun
was certainly on the 3st December, 1871, in the
Treasury, and remains 10 this day untouched Mr..
Brown might, therefore, have added this sum TO the
balances then on hand and it would have sweed the
amount to So 42O6SO 49, and shall give him credit
for this 500 600 of which, forming part of the ba-
lance ON hand, we know nothing at The date of his
leller-and consider The aggregate of balances BE-,
what il actually 2,420,6SO 40. MI. B. has, how
ever, claimed this 100 900 appropriation, and
forms part of his aggregate means as before stated
therefore his error neither increases diminishes
hat aggregate. | find, further that this document
does not distinctly r cognise any balance on hand of
the appropriation of 5000 600 made by the act Of the
lth September. 1 here had been bul small amount
expended, and there must have been large unex
pended balance on the 3lst December, IS4l At first
view, this appeared 10 me unaccountable--and cl'
quite DISPOSED to give Mr. Brown the benefit OF this
additional sum- which would have increased the ha'
lance The 3lst Drcembcr 1871, to upwards Of four
millions. But while disposed do him full justice
and equally disposed to do justice to the learn
ed and eminent gentleman at the head of the Navy
Department But he shall be dealt with fairly, and
Mr.. Brown, having made the assault, must ABIDE The
consequences.
/ ind among the items, in the document, No 70,
constituting the aggregate of balances on hand on
the 3lst Dec. lS4l, the following;
"Increase, repairs, armament and
equipment of the Navy Slll7,393 81
had previously understood that the balance under
this head S250,021 81, and 1t instantly occurred
to me, that the balance of other appropriation
must have been ad0ed to swell the amount to more
than million of dollars and having instituted
particular inquiry the following facts, fully confirm
ing my impression, were disclosed
The balance on the 3lst Dec. lS4l, under the head
of "lncrease, repairs &c. 520,02l 81
Tnt add cd IN h.Ia IF ha
appropriation of 18th Sept. lS4l viz; 597,362 so
making together the balance reported
in the document l,ll7,363 81
and blending the balances of two appropriations, in
stead OF stating each distinctly.
Now Mr. Brown, so far from having taken a cor
rect view of the appropriations states lst The ag
gregate of balances, which includes the balance Of
the appropriation of llth September, lS4l-then he
adds to that aggregate the whole Of the appropriation
of llth Observation-Disclosures S2,637 50 had been
expended Here is bi,t,der upon biunder
If ignorant of the fact of the balance Of the APP
preparation of 18th September having been included
in the aggregate of balance, he might be partly ex-
cused for surprising that the unexpended balance of
that appropriation ought to be added to the aggre-
gate. But he processes to deal in "erac amounts
putting all suggestions out of the question Hence,
instead of adding, according to his hypothesis $780,,
00O he ought to have added 1897 1862 50. That an
egregous existed in adding either (already
included in an aggregate has been already shown
amount but of this | am far from accusing Mr..
Brown
But let US put this down in figures
Mr.. Brown states he aggregate of bal
ances to be, on the Dist OF December,
164l 50 ,320,680 40
To this, he adds what had been actu-
ally expended of the appropriation Of
lth September, ls4l, viz. ~, 637 so,
and what had areadg been included
in and formed part Of that aggregate,
viz. s597 ,562 50, 100000 90
Thus making $50 49
or S60oO,O90 more than he ought to have DONE which
presume was unintentional on his part,
Thus we detect one bunder to the amount of
100000, which reduces Mr. Bro,cn's aggregate of
means " applicable to the naval service of the year
1912" to Sl0,0l0,575 10
| do not however, admit that the uneXpended bal
ance of the appropriation made by act OF 18th Sep
TENDER, lS4l can, with any proprety, be considered
forming portion of the funds applicable to the
naval service of the year 1912" or of any particular
year.
lst. Because the appropriation was made and might
legally have been expended in 164l.
ID Because the appropriation was made not to
meet any current expenditure Of any particular year,
but to add permanently paabe property to the Nary
such cannon, mortars, small arms, 10 last through
time and applicable, not exclusively TO 1912, any
other year. but to the serrice generally. for each and
every year as long they may last ,chch may be so or
The same may be said of the appropriation of the
9th of September, ls4l of 500 900 for Lake steam
ers, and also of the appropriation of S250OO0 towards
constructing an iron steamer, exc ptng that.the lat
ter was made in 1912; and of the WHOLE il may be
said that none of them can be expended in 1912
These items, amounting in the aggregate to $3.50
900, reduce Mr.. Browns aggregate of means, app-
cable to the service of 1912, to 9,O60,575 TO-
But there are other reductions yet TO be made
1t will be by the document No 70, that of the
balances STATED to be in the Treasury on the 3lst
December, lo4l there is number of items about to
be carried to the surplus fund, amounting to So, 1902
So. and further that there items which in no posi-
BILE view can be considered applicable to the naval
force for 1872 amounting to O,90S 81, VIZ
Statue of Washington, S4,009 26
Navy Pension Fund, 1928 AZ
Navy Hospital Fund, 2l7,64l y
S240,90S 81
Mr.. Brown will scarcely contend that the sum of
Sc l02 80, whicl about to be carried to the sur
plus fund as stated in the document to which he refers,
i l. 4. 49,