The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-07-17

power Il either fears TO attract attention in that dec
lion, or il has too much contempt for public opinion
TO deem it necessary to listen 10 public complaint,
and give account OF it's stewardship. Some months
since the National LtsgeHeer, impelled by necessity
growing out Of general dissatisfaction published, with
an air of offended dignity, meagre statement. which
intended defence Of the financial operations
OF the Executive during OF the three years the wings
have controlled that branch OF the government Yester
day il repubshes with air OF dgnifed Indifference,
its article relative 10 the expenditures OF the fiscal year
ending with June, 1851, sufficient reply the com
plants in Congress and elsewhere to the shameful
travagance OF the wing administration, by which the
average annual expenditure has been made greater than
during Mr. Folks administration, when we had new
financial and commercial system 10 put in operation, and
a foreign war 10 conduct,
The Iatsiigsncer's article was first published on the
3st OF March last II written in reply 10 state
mens that the expenditures OF the government had
reached from fifty to flty-two millions of dollars
1t draws a distinction between payment and expend
iture, and admits that for the year ending the 30th OF
June, 1851, the payments were $is,oo5s7s. The
Inielligsncer enumeraies the Mexican nsalmen,, the
Mexican indemnity, and various other items. such as
duties refunded Of duties expenses of collecting
4l6, which il deducts from the amount of payments
for the year, and thereby draws the conclusion that
the ordinary expenses only $35,2Ol ,432. This
sum il compares with the expenditure during year Of
Mr.. Van Burens administration and having done so.
leaves the subject if has done enough satisfy the
impairment curiosity OF the people in wishing 10 pry into
the public expenditure.
We expected TO the wing party ius,ifying its
expenditure by comparing it with that OF Mr.. Van Bu-
ren's administration, which il averred corruptly
travagant did we expect TO the National Intel
hgencr institute that comparison, after having deducted
nearly l3ooOooo from the whg expenditure, under the
pre,ence OF extraordinary items, without making any sim
liar deduction in favor of Mr. Van Buren,, although il is
known that expensive indian carried on
during his administration. We do not know 10 what
year the Iteigener aludes in It's comparison; but
have before table which gives the annual average
expenditure exclusive of payments account of the
public debt during Mr.. Van Burens administration at
$50 450 which just i 76S, 952 less than the expend-
iue for the year ending June 80 1851 after making
deduction account of such items every admnisira
ton has 10 pay Whenever WING extravaganza is
TONED the wing press cite number Of special items
not properly chargeabe against their administration and
insists upon deducting them before any comparison is
instituted with the expenditures under former admins
traons and they uniformly fail and refuse TO make al
lowances OF precisely the ZANE nature with those they
claim. The only method Of insttuing fair compari.
son 10 make the deduction in both instances or in
neither
The payments account OF the public debt are not
properly chargeable against administration Deduct.
ing such payments, and also deductng The payments
made Mexico under the treaty OF Guadalupe Hidago
yet have left average annual expenditure for three
years OF wing administration OF $50. 357 .595-and iha
too, time OF profound peace while the average an
nual expenditure during Mr.. Folks administration,
which conducted expensive foreign war, was only
S33.777 .22l-being less than that OF the wings by
S2,7so,373. II the payments account OF the public
debt, including the instruments 10 Mexico be added
then the average annual expenditure during Mr. Folks
admin tration would be Sf0966 1885, and during The
whig administration SOL ,s23, $40.
The article in the National IneRgenctr was called out
by estimates OF The democratic press which put the total
expenditure for the year ending June 80, 1884, at from
fifty 10 hty-two millions These estimates surely could
have been dictated by prejudice made bad faith
when consider that Mr.. Corwin, after one quarter
had expired, put the total expenditure actual and est
mated for the year at s53,s5a5 97, while The actual re
s5ls23,s $40 The Iateuigeneu may be right in saying
tina, in large expenditure "a few millions
less would by persons be thought to make
but little difference" We must however, object when
such persons, in lofty disregard for few Millions
up the public expenditure. and place heavy burdens
on the treasury and when called attempt TO
mislead and deceive the people. We admit that this ad
minstrstion, like every other administration prop
erly plead that ought not TO be held responsible for
every item OF expenditure. But administration,
when defending itself from charge OF extravaganza BY
comparing Us expenditures pth those Of others, excuse
itself for demanding Attachments and deductions which
il does allow 10 others. As TO the cost Of collection
OF the 10 which the Iaehgaoer would give the
character Of charge the treasury, we have TO
say that although it not before the wings into
power, made item in estimates n appropriations
yet the expenditure in collecting the has always
tanning the cost OF the government Payments account
OF the public debt and the Mexican instaments may
properly be deducted from the total OF expenditure
and those deductions have made As to the other
items claimed by the Intelgneer. the excepted,
they such every administration must incur and
be deducted than the Presidents salary or
the OF the public grounds. As 10 the census it is
incumbent the administration to show that IL has bees
taken economical plan for the fact that
item Of expenditure is unusual does warrant the