The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-12-28

Survey rs Il coast cossI 81 California 100000 90
Lighthouse, dry-dock, and marine hos
pital in California $4,000 90
New Mexico l47.aoo 90
Expenses OF loans and treasury notes
[warl l50.s7o ii
24,252,719 0s
Let us examine these items. We commence with the
first The manner in which Mr. Corwin makes it APP
pear that the Mexican has occasoned increase OF
expenditure in the War Department Of eightytwo millions
for the years ending June 80, 1852 is this He
Inmates the expenses Of the War Department for seven
years according to the amount expended in 1885, and
then he deducs that from the actual and estimated
expenditure for years succeeding the declaration
OF war The difference, he afirms, was occasioned by
the With all due Differences we must say that this
mode of reasoning is absurd We willing to admit
that the excess OF expenditure during the may be
chargeable to the war. But when wing extravaganza
and incompetency have made the expenditures Of the
War Department unnecessarily large since the conclusion
Of peace is only illogical but manfesy and grossly
unjust attempt to make the responsible for the
suits OF that extravaganza and incompetency According
to Mr. Corwins mode Of reasoning, he may waste during
the present year millions in every branch of army expen
dture; he may pay twenty prices for subsistence and
forage and waste wherever it be possible waste yet
all will be covered by calculating what the expenditure
would have been according TO the peace establish
ment OF 1s45, and charge the excess to the Mex.
lean war. If we had never been unfriendy terms
with Mexico-if gun had never been fired on the
Rio Grande-a the officers and soldiers OF the army
would have drawn their pay and consumed their ratons
as they do The only increase in the expenditure
is the increased price Of transportation and subsistence on
the remote lines Of OUT rontieran item Of expen
dture which cannot be admitted, until it is shown TO ex-
is We have seen, in Of the organs OF the admins
traton, statement Of portion OF the army expenditures
which bore official appearance, and was, we think,
intended to sustain the argument of the Secretary OF the
Treasury this point II so, the attempt was lame and
impotent for the statement to which we refer gave
portion of the expenditures Of the troops in Texas and
the territory acquired from Mexico and also portion OF
the expenses Of the residue Of the army Texas was an
nexed by joint resolution before the Mexican war; and
OF course any expenditures made for that portion OF the
army stationed in Texas cannot be charged to the war
AS to the troops stationed in New Mexico, Utah, and
California, their expenses not to be charged 10 the
war; for they would have been charge upon the
treasury II there had been no increase OF territory and
they had been distributed from Old Point Comfort TO Fort
Laramie The of the expenditure OF the troops
in Utah. New Mexico and California is all that can in
any event. be charged 10 the Mexican war; and that ex
properly be charged until it is shown that
the expenditures were economical as possible Mr.
Corwn has made no effort to show that fact and we
rather think that he never will make the attempt In is4s
had $50 in active service in the enemys coun
try The OF those averaged four hundred and three
dollars each Now, in time Of peace, we have ~ sa7,
and the average cost TO the nation is gh hundred and
Jorytoo dollars each To eyes, this looks like bal
against PEACE. instead Of balance against WAR
We take up the next item-that which relates to the
navy.
This item s manufactured in the same manner AZ that
which relates to the expenditures for the array The
expenses Of ne navy for 1s45 are taken as basis and
then the expenses for years calculated on that
basis The thus obtained is deducted from the ex.
penses Of the naval establishment, actual and estimated
for the years ending June 30, 1882 The differ
ence between these (slso5s, s5s ny is charged
against the Mexican war. We have already explained
the fsacy Of this mode OF reasoning. when commenting
the item charged against the army. We have con-
sdered the natter and see that the navy costs
single dollar which be fairly attributed to the
war with Mexico. That war did not induce US to
build a single ship. or to increase our naval ma
rine by single man. The Navy Department during
the war may have purchased, and we believe did
purchase, steamers, and perhaps fitted out revenue
cutters and used them for war purposes but we are
yet to learn that any of these vessels remained as
charge the Navy Department. even when Mr. Preston
was at its head Wesre that such remain now
Our Pacific squadron may have been expensive than
the squadron would have been in the year ls45 but
submit that the increase in the cost Of articles Of SUBJ
- L..
Of the gold mines Of California, and not by the march Of
General Taylor from Corpus Christi to Fort Brown. We
respectfully suggest to Mr. Gorwin to charge the whole
item to the revolutionary war; for, had Il not been for that
war; we would never have owned ship to send to the
Pacific Perhaps would be better TO charge the whole
matter to Christopher Columbus; for had il not been for
him. the Western World might have remained undiscov
cred, and there would have been revolutionary war;
George Washington, no American Union, no fernando