The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-10

Now the estimated revenue for 1850 Taylors admin
saton) is S3 100000, and, taking the amount expend
Secrearys estimate for the second half, s325oOO you
will have 81 ,S97 as the expense OF collecting the
revenue in 1850. He also estimates ~, 100000 the
expense OF collecting the estimated OF $32
900 in 1851. repeat, this table explains why the law
OF lS49 enaced and embraces the strongest possi
BILE argument for adherng to its limit give the year
nue. reached one and half million of dollars Before
that time bad passed the great and memorable OF the
bank expansions OF 1885 and 1886 when under the nu
OF expansion. To permit the Secretary 60 he
has commenced and TO give him what he asks, wlbe to
insure the cost Of collecting the revenue from customs
for the present fiscal year 70 be S2eie97 on an estimate
(for the revenue) Of S3I 100000.
The gentleman from Ohio refers To the case OF Eng
land These large salaries required to impress the
people with the majesty of the government. &c We,
the other hand, plain simple, and republican In
1918 revenue of 500 900 was collected for sac 900
Having been done once it be done again not how
ever, by giving the Secretary carte hdnchs Whyl Be-
all having influence with the Secretary are after
Office for themselves frends the love OF oce having
grown with our national growth IL took rapid strides
dunng Tylers administration. There was, must con-
fess but single excuse for not cutting down these
penses during the last administration which was, because
Mr. Walker had asked TO have them limited to Si,52o
600, afterwards extended TO 81 100000 When there is
restriction by law, and the administration has its
discretion TO the number OF officers TO be appointed ir
essbe appeals made the Secretary 10 appoint his
friends In this Office seeking age Secretary OF the
Treasury can resist them.
Mr.. TOOMBS, (nierposing) The gentleman said that
Mr. Walker had stated that the expenses could be re-
duced. Now, Mr.. Walker said he had reduced the ex
penses to 81 100000.
Mr.. THOMPSON il is needless to refer to the prac-
tice of Mr. Walker. No man is keener than ne to per-
ceive what is right but he requires the restrictions OF law
10 insure that he carries out his own propositions, la
laugh j and have higher appreciation oi the present
During the whole OF the last administration desired
TO prescribe this limitation, in favor OF restricting
the present administration All here knowing my course
are aware that am an economist ! DO not wish the
Secretary TO say TO me, 81 recommend rigid economy in
the appropriation OF the public money! and the next
week 70 recommend the appropriation OF s2.65o0oo for
the collection Of the revenue and 70 make ne 5sspons IA
course OF this administration in this matter. The
amount Of believe to have been collected for
one.fourth the sum now proposed Tell me not that
England does at cheaper rate. We have done IL; and
what have done be done again. but not un-
less the Secretary shall be constrained to do it and It rs
idle TO say that the revenues OF the country will be d
mnshed by the proposed limitation Of this number OF
officers.
We cannot do otherwise than limit these expenses
because, the law now stands, the Secretary may 6x
at discretion the number OF officers 10 be employed The
law fixes the fees of but few OF them, but the number
Is at the discretion OF the Secretary In producing the
letter OF MIR Walker, the gentleman from ONO MT.
'ths sum expended in collecting the revenue is al
most exclusively within the discretion OF the Secretary
Of the Treasury" Though the fees OF few OF these
officers fxed their number IS indefnite leaving the
Secretary to spend any amount he will.
The gentleman from Georgia TMr. ToomBsl stated
yesterday note worthy fact viz that the cost OF col
lecting the revenue in New York alone 10 now more
than was expended in collecting the whole thirty three
millions OF revenue IN 1s6 and more than the expenses
Of collecting the S31 100000 OF revenue accfung 10
1926 Who, then, doubts that we propose 20 allow
sufficient sum by the act OF March, ls49i should we
not then, fix limit and make specific appropriauonsf II
you take my amendment you will find that differs from
the proposition Of the Committee OF Ways and Means
only in this that the committee gives 3ls, whilst
give 81 o05, ,ooo--makng difference only OF 86i 900;
and II you add the carriage, drayage &C., estimated at
sis ooo the difference between that and what the Sec
retary asks is sl39,000.
II IL said that Congress, not the officers OF the govern.
mcnt, should first commence this reform This is the
reason why we accomplish reforms Men 20 absorbed
in complicated business members OF Congress are
cannet lead in sse reforms: nor can Congress make