The daily union., 1852-08-05
Extraysxant Expenditure.

money DuiuchsoHe 10 ne people, lot III must DC mel by
taxation in one form another But the burden thus
imposed is not the only OF complaints for whilst
economy argues honesty and fidelity, extravaganza is
held conclusive of ncompeteney corruption. II is
not therefore. matter OF surprise that the preslden
tal election approaches the wing party is beginning
be alarmed at the effect which the summing up OF its
expenditures will have the public mind or that whg
journals attempt 10 avoid and explain away the prominent
and significant fact that the average annual expenditure Of
Mr. Potks aiministrs son, ohieh conducted reign a,
Is less than the average annual expenditure Of General 1ay
iors and ir. FRmOres administrations This fact is
tested by the public documents and cannot be denied ;
and ut,ers to the good OF the people plain,
phac. aud convincing argument which sophstry can
weaken On Tuesday the National In,ellgsnesr attempt
ed TO evade the force OF this conclusive fact by adopting
most unworthy course OF reasoning and attempting 10
sus,ani by most unwarranabe misuse OF public docu-
mens We trust that il may appear that the Insgsncer
has been imposed upon, and that II did not abrcate and
attempt knowingly TO impose the public the deceptive
limitations and erroneous statements contained in its
ticle alluded to.
The Inisiigeneer does not compare four years Of Mr.
Poks administration with the three years Of whg rule
avoids that comparison and institutes between the
year ending June 3o s4e and that ending June ao 1851
The argument OF the InssRigmesr shows plainly why
these years selected Its leading design is
reduce the amount of expenditure which should be
charged against the whig administration, by deducing
tain items which charges to the Mexican and 10
objects OF expenditure and il any other year but that
ending in June 1886 Mad been selected for comparson
every without prompting would have seen that sim
lar allowances ought to be made in favor of the demo-
expenditure, the Inesencsr avoids the necessity of ex
aminng into the character of the items of that sxpend-
ture many of ,hich precisely similar in character to
those phich ii dedlct from the ohig aggregate The In
Higsneer reveals by the attempt il makes to conceal its
real purpose selecting the year ending June 80, 1851
1t states the expenditure of the last isca year--that
which closed with last Junca $45, 900, and deducs
an item of l346,34 being the in the amount Of
public debt redeemed during the last year that
redeemed during the year ending in 1851 and deducts
the further item of $375.OOo for interest Texas
stock After these deductions, the InseAgencsr asserts
that there has been retrenchment in expenditure,
and that has not selected for lis comparison the most
economical year of the whg administration. II forgets
that four OF the eighteen items which it claims credits
for the year ending June ao 1851, and of which the
treasury relieved during that year, amount to
than the re,renchmcnt claimed. The four items are:
l. Awards TO claimants against Mexico 81, ,59l ,2l3
2. Repayment of duties on sugar and mo-
lasses 439,56S
3. Excess Of deposites for unascertained du.
4. Expenses of taking seventh census 672.oo3
S4,59s, ,s2s
This sum exceeds by 62l $40 the amount of retrench
meni claimed and might be increased by large por-
lion Of the residue OF the eighteen items, showing rapid
and continuing increase in the public expenditure.
We will now scrunize the InteHigeneer's comparison
between the expenditures of the years ending June 90
1916, and June 30, 1851, the most economical year Of
Mr. Flmore's administration. we have shown above
Expenditures for the year ending June 30,
1851 $4S, ,005 ,s7s
Expenditures for the year ending June 80,
1916 2S,03l,lls
Increase Of expenditure sl9,974 ,76a
The Inteuigeneer attempts TO avoid the force of the
argument contained in the foregoing figures and for that
purpose and prevent the idea that the year ending in
1916 is entitled to any reduction states the entire ex
pendure at S26 69o,774, which is the amount after de-
dueng the payments account Of e public debt and trust
funds Thus an allowance is made without calling at.
tenon TO the fact, by OF statement put forth
in such manner to create the belief that none was
called for by the public debt that existed before the
The Ineltgsncer next proceeds TO say
"Though hoslities commenced In Mexico few weeks
prior the end of that fiscal year, lJune 80 1851 and
though arrangements for the Immediately
menced very he II any, aefnai payments for the
made from the treasury previous the then new
hsc al year and il reduction made that aocoun
and the real peace expenditure placed the reduced and
round OF s26,5ooooo, will probably be very nearly
or quite correct"
If the In,eaigencr had condescended 10 examine the
official records, it would have found in Mr. Walkers
report the fnances- OF December Q. 1916, page al
among the expenditures under the direction OF the War
Departmen, for the preceding fiscal year, this item
Mexican hostiles S3sOt 64s Oi
and on the next page. [aa among the expenditures under
the direction of the Navy Department, this item
Mexican hosilitics Sl476fo 40
Those two i'ems amounting TO $3.50 267--more than
thirteen per cent of the annual expenditure stated by the
Inishgsnee-are entirely overlooked and doubt is ex.
pressed whether there any payments for the
war expenses
The Jn'eiigrneer next proceeds TO make reductions
from the expenditures for the year ending June 1851 by
subtractng sIe,60l,ei3, the aggregate of items
which it alleges grew OF the Mexican war; and OF
eleven other items which formed no portion OF the
annual charge during the year ls45as. 1t then
up thus:
Total expenditure for The year ending June
dad, ta,ns n-.