The Portland daily press., 1870-09-12

CneXpenQeu balances IN the treasury
July J. 1851 ..............".. ........Sl4 soo344
Now all this looks very fine if you don't
touch it. But just try to put your hand on it,
and it crumbles into vapor like that vast army
on paper with which Napoleon didn't beat the
Germans.
1t will be noticed that no allowance is
made for any "unexpended balances" on July
l., 1870, except to make the other calcula-
tions come out to the satisfactions of the ar
gus. That is nice way to add or subtract
arbitrarily so as to "get the answer" as child.
rem sometimes do in arithmetic when they
cannot make their figuring come out right
any other way. The argus pretends to
prove the amount of the unexpended bal
auces July 1, 1870, by assuming the uery
thing in dispute-.he amount of the expendi-
lures for the last fisbal year.
But the argus having discovered that there
was missing link in the argument comes
to the rescue in its issue of Saturday and
asks why if there were large unexpended bal.
ances, the Departments asked for the cur
rent so much more than for the last fiscal
year; why the deficiency bills were needed if
there were any unexpended balances; ard
finally falls back in good order on Mr.. Bout
well. AS to the first point Mr.. Boutwell,
in his annual report, estimated the ex-
penditures for the current fiscal year at $291,-
100000. The estimates of the departments
were probably made large so as to allow for
"unexpended balances" Of hundred million
0pr mo rhar +l,o+ Al,
manufactured-its editorials and Mr.. Beck his
speeches out of ''unexpended balances. 1t
was necessary to make liberal provisions for
both. As TO the second point that proves
nothing as deficiencies in the appropriations
for one object cannot be made up from appro-
priations for any other SO that deficiency
bill may be needed when in the aggregate
there is large excess of appropriations. As
to the third point the argus does not pre-
tend that Mr.. Boutwell, certified that the
1921 100000 as well as the $1O2OOO,OOO would
be expended. 1t was $S,000,0O0 of the "un-
expended balances" on July 1, 1869, that
would be left July /, 1870. How much of the
1921 100000 was left. does not appear from
his statement nor has the argus shown, as
1t mast do before 1t can impeach the official
statement of Acting Secretary Richardson
lhat the expenditures for the last fiscal year
were 292,0O0O00 or about what Secretary
Boutwell, estimated they would be.
The reckoning of the argus is defective in
another point. 1t reckons appropriations as
part of the public funds. This wonld be the
ridiauInuc h1u,.1or IL,
most contemplate fraud in the whole affair.
The government does not pay it's bills in ap-
propriations but in cash nor would it have
been any the richer if the unexpended bal
ances on July l, 1869, had been one hundred
billions instead of one hundred miiors
Nothing can be more contemplate than this
attempt of the argus to deceive the peo
pie by taking advantage OF their unfamiliarity
with the financial operation of the govern
ment. The assumption that unexpended ap-
preparations from any part of the public funds
is all moonshine. Leaving out that $1O2, 2,OOO,-
900 therefore the resources of the Treasury
for the last fiscal year were the cash in the
Treasury July 1, 1869, amounting to $780,
100000 and the revenues $411 100000, in the
aggregate $567 100000 of which $266,OOO,OOO
remained unexpended at the close of the year,
showing that not mole than 1901 100000
could have been spent.
Inc Argus crows over the "unexpended
balances as greatly to the credit of Mr.. John
sons economy. But how about those stories
the argus and the Democrats were telling
during the last Presidential campaign that
tue Republicans had cut down the appropria-
lions below the expenditures for political eff
feet? Either that statement was false or
your unexpended balances are myth.