Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1870-09-23

the g p each in gold, in far cheape.
times, of the last administration th'
Democratic party favored this nation
rush to their arms this Fall, or EN-
| brace their candidates, or seek to moo
/ their ship of State in such a haven o.
Democratic Reform.
have not been able to obtain the
/ aggregate amount of expenditures o.
/ for later fiscal year than 1867. But
in that year, the cost of governing the
/ 200, 600 of people in that city, includ-
/ ing pay of officers, police, interest on
debt, and State taxes, but without any
Army or Navy or Pension List, or In
| dians Except the Tammany chiefs) to
/ provide for, was t23, ,920, go, not quite
81, ,O0O. 900. I trust, if these chiefs are
ever to obtain power, they viii not
expect to pay out, for governing 40,
000. 600 of people, at the same proper
ton it costs them to govern 1 .OO0, COO
in New York City, which would ag-
gregate $50, 100000 per year. But,
without charging that they would, !
submit that before they can expect the
people to credit their pledges of re-
trenchment and reform, they should
give us some specimens of its work
ings in that Overwhelmingly Demo-
cratic city of theirs.
GRANTS ADMINISTRATION COMPARED
WITH JoHNsON's.
When Mr.. Dawes left Washington
last March to speak in New Hamp-
shire, President Grant said to him /:
'"Hell the people of New Hampshire
that during my administration there
shall be no ascending scale of public
expenditures, but wherever the clos
est scrutiny shall disclose the possibiI-
ity of cutting off dollar it shall be
I at nn of
Government expenses show how this
pledge has been redeemed. For the
fiscal year ending June 80, 1868 (Presi-
dent Johnson's last full year, 1877 ,000.
600. For the year ending June 80, 1869
(eight months johnson and four
months Grant's), $321, 600, 600. For the
year ending June so, 1870 (all Grant's),
1922, ,0O0, 600. All these include the in
terest on the public debt. ApprOpria-
tions for the year ending June 80, 1871,
$l5S, ,000, 900. Add interest on reduced
debt, which last year was SI28, 900, 900,
but viii not now reach SI1S, 10000 for
the year. Total S276, ,0OO, 900, or $780,
900, 600 less than Johnson's last full
year.
This retrenehment can be shown ev-
en- more clearly by the following Off
cial figures from the Treasury Depart
ment Total expenditures, not includ-
ing interest for Is months, from
=
tJohnsOn'sl, 1928, 765. 6S9; from March
1, 1869, to September 1, 1870 (Grant's),
S245, Ole, ,269. Decrease xpenditures,
$50, ,S53, ,060. During JohnsOn's last Is
months he paid of interest on debt
S2I1 ,221. GIG; during Grants first IS
months he paid of interest S193, ,42l, ,155.
Reduction of interest, ST., 500, SOL. To-
tai decrease in 1S months, 500, ,653, ,621.
TAXING U. S. BONDS.
- A1,a
cratic cry here in the West, ''Tax the
Bonds" but have never hesitated in
exposing its fallacy. We cannot do it:
First. Because we promised not to do
it when we borrowed the money and
could not have obtained the money
if we had not promised, and the prom
ise is as sacred as the debt. Secondly:
Because the Supreme Court has decid-
ed five times, unanimously, from the
days of Chief Justice Chase, that they
are not taxable by States or cities, for
the obvious reason that, if they were,
New York, for instance, could prevent
the United States borrowing another
dollar in that State by unjust taxa
tion, putting the nation, even for mon
ey at the feet of the States-but sin
gle step from national suicide and
death. Thirdly: Because the e1emp-
tion from taxation, in an hour of ma
tionaI peril, was part of the cOnsidera-
needed To offset the hazard of losing
all by rebel victory, or the incoming
of some hostile party hating the debt
and its object, and willing to repudi-
ate it. FOltrthtg: Because, though
there have been Democratic Presidents,
Democratic Congresses, and Democrat
ic bonds in our past history, not sin
gle bond ever issued under President
Madison for the war of 1872, under
Polk for the Mexican war, or under
u. In nf
Democratic administration, was ever
taxed or proposed to be taxed by any
Democratic Treasurer, Senator, or
Representative. To tax our own debt
to help to pay it off was never dream
ed of as Democratic by any of them
If it could be taxed one per cent, it
could be six per cent, and thus be
rendered worthless. It is indeed "a
new way to pay old debts"
But the bonds. are taxed for national
purposes exactly as other property IS
taxed. If one man has 100000 invest
ed in farms, and another similar sum
in bonds, the Government Assessor
does not tax either the farms or the
bonds. But he taxes the income from
each at precisely the same per cent
When the United States built Post
Office and Court building at Indianap-
oils, the State agreed that she would
never tax it, and why? Because the
interests of the nation required 1t
should be done. The Government
could not be required to pay taxes to
a State. So the Supreme Court decid-
ed that the State could not tax the
credit, the borrowing power, the OBJ
legations of the Government, and
why? Because the interests of the
nation, the full vigor of its credit and
its national life required that it's obl-
cations should never be subject 10 the
capriciOus or inimieal legislation, or
even the necessities of States, and that
it should have this exemption as an ell
ement of strength in borrowing, or in
funding its Indebtedness afterward.
FAITHFUL COLLECTION AS WELL AS RE-
DUCTION OF NATIONAL TAXES.
The platform of 1868 pledged the Re-
publican organization to a "radical re-
form of the shameful eorruptions" of
the last Administration, and that tax
alton should be equalized and reduc-
ed as rapidly as the national faith
would permit. This was no idle
pledge, on which to obtain power, but
has 6een redeemed to the letter.
In this connection, allow me to read
the following charge against the Ad-
ministration from an editorial of The
Indianapolis Sentinel of August ID, the
leading paper of the Democratic party
in this State. It says:
From June 30, 1863, to June 30, 1870, we
have the first clear fiscal year of the Grant
administration. And how dOes the tax
levied upon the people during that year
compare with the tax levied during the
year handed down by Andrew johnson 2
Look at the official statement Of Govern
ment levies just put forth by Mr.. Boutwell, /:
1oo9-lu S9ralnJ S5ge z
186s-60 (Johnson) ..-......... $40, ,943, TAT
Excess Of Grant. ...........s37, ,SS7 ,825
Thus the Government levied upon the peO-
pie nearly SIS, 600, 600 more during the first
year of Grants Administration than
was levied during the last fiscal year OF
Johnson's Administration. This is a reduc-
ton of taxation with vengeance!
Although this comparison of The