The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-06-14


for the part he acted, in depnving many OF them OF
employ in the public service.
Mr.. Brown is scarcely known to me-and | can
cherish towards him unfrendly feeling his slate
ments shall be examined with candor but the public
interests require that the ruth should he made known
land in performing this task, it will be found that
Mr.. Brown, whether Intentionally or otherwise he
best knows, has committed many mistakes-and de-
duced from them many erroneous conclusions.
After stating the average annual expense OF the
Nav for the last six wears to be ST. 1853 800 65-he
proceeds show the balance in the Treasury on she
3lst of December, lS4l, to be S., 32O,6oO 49-and
An anpropraiion for ordnance s6OO,OOO
For Steamers on the Lakes, l0O,OOO
| Appropriation made this session, for y
an iron Steamer, $4,000
| Amount in the bill recently passedb by
the House of Representatives, 6,339, 1874 81
| Making in all, applicable TO the Naval
service of the year 1912 the sum Of lO,6lO,575 III
The appropriation for the 5000 900 referred to by
| Mr.. Brown made | th September, lS4l that Tor
steamers Lakes $l00, 900 9tn September, lo4l
| Mr.. Brown refers to House document No. Is, IN
| which, double Internationally, he committed
| mistake. The number of the document ID rs. II
consists Of letter from the Secretary of the Nasyt
the Speaker Of the House Of Representatives, da'rd
February LIST, lo42, transmitting The annual state
ment of The appropriations for the year lo4l-pre-
pared not by himself, nor by any one under his cnA
| troll, but by the ID comptroller of the Treasury, Mr.
| A. X. Parris-as may be seen by Mr.. Parrs's letter
to the Secretary of the Navy, dated January 3lst,
! 1912.
In ascribing to Mr. Upshur the statement that the
balance in the Treasury on the 3ls December 1871,
was Applicable to the naval service for lS42, Mr.
| Brown greatly errs-and he would err if he asclbed
such statement TO Mr. Paris any other officer OF
the Government, to any individual OF common
sense at all acquainted with the finances OF the Navy
In the document No 70, Mr.. Paris states cha
lances on the 3lst December, lS4l, IS 32O 6SO ~;
but he says nothing of these balances being dppti-
cable to tho nauai seruice for 1912" To Mr. Broton
alone do such information direct opposition
to all official statements. Having examined this do
cument No. Is, with some attention to Its details,
find that it does not embrace the OOOOO appropr
| aed BY the act of 9th September, lS4l which SUN
was certainly the 3lst December, l04l, In the
Treasury and remains TO this day untouched Mr.
Brown might, therefore, have added this sum to the
balances then on hand, and it would have sweled the
amount to So 42060O 49, and shall give him credit
for this 800 OOO of which, forming part Of the ba-
lance on hand, we know nothing at the date of his
etter-and consider the aggregate of balances to be-
what it actually was 342O $50 40. MI. B. has, how
ever claimed this 600 appropriation, and it
forms part of his aggregate means as before stated
therefore his error neither increases diminishes
that aggregate. | fnd further that this document
does not distinctly recognise any balance on hand OF
the appropriation of $500 900 made by the act OF the
llth September. There had been but small amount
expended, and there must have been large unex
pended balance on the 3lst December l84l. AT first
vew this appeared to me unaccountable-and fci
quite disposed to give Mr.. Brown the beneht OF TIM
additional sum, which would have increased the ha
lance ON the 3lst December l84l, to upwards Of fou
millions. But while disposed to do him full justice:
and am equally disposed to dojusce to the learn
ed and eminent gentleman at the head of the Navy
Department. But he shall be dealt with fairly, ant
Mr.. Brown, having made the assault, must abide thu
consequences.
find, among the items, in the document, No. 70
constituting the aggregate of balances on hand OF
the 3lst Dec. l84l, the following:
increase, repairs armament and
equipment of the Navy $l,117,383 81
had previously understood that the balance under
this head $3.50, O2l 81, and it instantly occurred
to me, that the balance of some other appropriation
must have been added to swell the amount to more
than million of dollars; and having instituted o
particular inquiry, the following facts fully confirm.
ing my impression, were disclosed
The balance the 3Ist Dec. l84l, under the head
of "Increase, repairs, SC. 52OO2l 81
To this was added the balance of the
appropriation of llth Sept. l84l, viz 597, 1862 81
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 MIR. Brown, so far from having taken cor
rect view of the appropriations, states lst The ag-
gregate of balances, which includes the balance OF
the appropriation of 18th September l84l-then he
adds to that aggregate the ,ohot of the appropriation
of 18th September-although $2,637 50 had been
erpeTded. Here IS bttfller upon 0tltfNef
| 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 s,pposing that the unexpended balance OF
that appropriation ought to be added to the aggre-
gate. But he processes to deal in 'eract amounts,
putting all suggestions out of the question. Hence
instead of adding according to his hypothesis, $500,
900, he ought to have added $597 1863 SO. That al
egregous error existed in adding either sum (alreadJ
included in aggregated has been already shown
1t has the aspect of doubling sum to increase the
amount; but of this am far from accusing Mr.
Brown.
But let us put this down in figures
MIR. Brown states the aggregate of bal
ances to be, on the 3lst of December,
184l, S3,32O,ooo ~
To this. he adds what had been actu
ally expended ofthe appropriation OF
| llth September, l84l, viz So, 637 so,
and what had areadg been included
in and formed part Of that aggregate,
viz. S597 ,562 50, 6Oo,oOO w
Thus making Q-- 1890, $50 AZ
or 5000 900 more than he ought to have done which
! presume was unntentional on his part,
| Thus we detect one blunder to the amount OF
100000, which reduces Mr. Bro,on's aggregate OF
means, applicable to the naval service OF the year
| l842n to $l0Ol0,575 10
/ do not, however, admit that the unexpended bal
ance of the appropriation made by act OF llth sep
tember 1S4l, can, with any proprety, be considered
forming portion OF the funds aPPiicaoie 10 the
naval service of the year 1872 or OF any particular
| year.
lst. Because the appropriation was made and might
legally have been expended IN lS4l
| 3D. Because the appropriation was made not to
meet any current expenditure Of amy particular year,
but to add permanently paluabe property to the Navy,
such as cannon mortars small arms, to last through
tine and applicable, not exclusively to 1912, or any
other year. but to the service generally for each ana
epery year as long they may last chich may be so or
| LOO years
The same may be SAID of the appropriation of the
9th of September l84l, Of 800 900 for Lake steam
ers and also Of the appropriation of S25OOUO towards
constructing an iron steamer, exc Ptng that the lat
ter was made in lS42 and Of the whole, it may be