The Portland daily press., 1870-08-29
National Expenditures.

The argus thus ciphers out the
amount of our national expenditures:
Appropriated by regular bills. s2s1. AIS 2ss 81
Appropriated by deficiency BILL -. 10 0O0OG0 90
Balance which the Secretary GER
tilted in February last would
DC Expended Observation-Disclosures. 81 1867 5c6 Al
Total. .$39S, 1872 1905
On the strength OF this calculation the argus
asserts that we spent during the last year
three and halt dollars for every dollar ex-
pended for like purposesin 1860 This calcu-
, lation is faulty in two respects. 1t only pur-
ports to give prophecy when history is de-
manded, and the proof is wantsng that Mr..
Boutwell, ever made the estimate in this
shape. We do not remember 10 have, seen
anything of the kind. Is the Agusr sure
that it was $94,G67, 600 in excess of the appro-
priations? What was the language hegused?
The presumption that there is some mistake
about it is very stlong from the fact that the
Secretary in his annual Report gave the actu-
al expenditure for the quarter ending Sept
30th 1869 and the estimates for the remaining
three quarters as amounting in all to 1884,
10000, or two and a half IN lions IN excess
OF the actual expenditures as recently certi-
fed to by the acting Secretary OF the Treasu-
ry. The coincidence is so remaik abe between
the estimates made in December and the re-
ported expendtms as recently announced,
that the correctness Of each derives confrma-
ton from the other, and the combined evil
dence OF both will, We believe be irresistible
to every impa- tai mind. Certainly no.h hing
but the cleaTest evidence can impeach the
accuracy of statements thus supported.
1t would indeed lie a most liable
thing If Mr.. Boutwell, in three short months
after making his Report discovered that lie
had made an error of $94 1867 900 in his esti-
mates. Il he made so large mistake as ihas
his certificate about what was going to be
spent for the Test of the year cannot be re-
garded as of equal authority with the cert:f-
cate of the Acting Secretary as TO what avas
spent.
The statement Of the argus is p1epun.e-.
Gus on the face Of it, for it makes The eSperd
lures underPres;dent Grant 100000 ecea..-
er than under Johnson, while no fact is bet
ter established than that our expenses have
been less under The former than they were
InGer the latter. Till the Argus can bring
some better evidence to The support of the as
seltions than we have yet seen, they will not
be entitled TO credit however virtuous may
be the intentions OF those who make them,
We repeat what We have before stated and
what has not yet been disproved, that making
allowance for the depreciation of the cur
rency and the increase OF the county lin
population, our ordinary expenses are barely
81 per cent. greater than in 1860, that for this
increase we have something substantial to
show, that this gate of incres.e is not more RAP
id than in similar periods for fo.iy yea. past
under Democratic administrations, that it is
less rapid than between 1910 and 1920, the
only period when with the Democ; acv in
power we have been similarly situated, and
lastly the average annual expenditures wal
not be greater in proportion TO our popria-
ton under Grant than under buchanan.
These propositions We defy the Argus CT any
other Journal TO refnle.