The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1870-10-13

L W
for 1868 at 81, 100000. It is manifest that he
does not intend to contrast ta1attons, tor the
difference between $S57, 900 and 100000 If
not S1S6, 900, but S643, 900, and his own figures
would contradict him. 1t is expenditures when
he compares. And here is MI. Chamberlain
first error for the $685., 900, which he gives as
the general tax, was not collected, and OF course
| could not have been expended. 1t MIR. Cham
berlain had referred to the report from which
he extracted the $685., 900, he would have seen
that the actual tax received was $500, ,444 ~.
The difference may be regarded as too small to
merit attention, but we are 80 poor that even
that trihe is important.
Of the 81, 100000, Mr.. Chamberlain says that
S500,000 "was appropriated" to pay accrued IN
terest on the public debt. He then says that
$25OOOO of this amount is ehargeabde to the old
administration, and the other $3.50, 900 of inter-
est he deducts "from the aggregate of taxes
levied" Just as if it had been paid from those
taxes. His assertion really is that the $780, 900
was paid from the taxes. Now, I assert that
not one dollar was paid from the taxes for in
terest, during the fiscal year 1868. have care
fully examined the receipts and payments at
the treasury for that year, and there is not one
single entry for interest," and Mr.. Chamberlaln,s
deduction of S256,000 is utterly unwarranted:
The truth is that $500, 900 was appropriated
to pay interest on the public debt, in the gen.
eral appropriation, but by another ect August
&c. 1868, bonds to the amount of one million of
dollars were authorized to be issued for pay
ment of interest and authority was given to
sell the bonds, and Mr.. Chamberlain in his
speech says, i'of these bonds about S650,0OO
have been used thus far" The interest was
not paid from the taxes, but from the bonds,
and Mr. Chamberlain's statement is not only
contradicted by the official records, but is in
consistent with another statement in the same
speech. ;.
MIR. Chamberlain next reviews the expendi-
lures for the years 1860 and 1859, and from
those of the latter year makes several deduc-
tions. among them interest on the public debt,
"because in 1859 and 1860, that interest was
wholly paid by the Bank of the State" and
Mr.. Chamberlain challenges the denial of this
statement The challenge is easily met. BY
reference to the omptroller-generals report for
October l, 1859, pages % and 20, it will be seen
that there was paid in that year for interest on
State debt, viz: Six per cent stock new capita!
S39, ,429,90, and six per cent stock new capital
$29,67O; total $685. 099 80 I; and if Mr.. Chamber
lain, when examining the comptroller-generaPs
report for the same year, to ascertain the gen.
eral tax, had only looked at page 4 of the re-
port he would have seen the following: "Du-
ring the last fiscal year it became necessary to
raise by taxation s63, 900 to meet the payment
of interest on the bonds and stocks of the new
capitol, and during the present year to raise
$S7, 600 for the same purpose" Or If MI.
Chamberlain, while looking over the expendi-
lures for the past year ending October, 1860,
had been at all inquisitive, he would have
found this item: "Interest on bonds and stocks
for new capitol $99, ,592 co." Or, if he had even
looked at the estimates for the year commen-
cling October 1860, he would have seen "for
interest on S1,850,000 of State capitol bonds
and stocks Sill, 900; interest on Blue Ridge
bonds S1SOOOO; total $4,000. And yet it is
grayelv said that "the interest was paid wholly
by the Bank of the State" Will MIR. Cham
berlain admit that his statement is erroneous,
and that speech intended to enlighten, does
actually mislead?
AGAIN. Mr. Chamberlain says that the cur
rent expenses of the State for 1869 were ST.
1885 1920.
From this he deducts-For extraordinary ex-
penses, $147,000; for interest, 1888, ,699 86. 10
tai, $4S5 693 Sc, and obtained S6l7,67S 81 as
the current expenses of the State.
I have already shown that Mr.. Chamberlain's
assertion relative to the interest is contradicted
by the proofs but he commits more serious
error when we contrast the S549, ,251 09 of 1860
with the S617, ,678 "a of 1869. Well may he
e1claim, "I am willing on all occasions to let
these figures stand fair and undiminishedp, r.
But / propose to show that, consistently with
the truth they cannot stand. Brought to the
test they will be diminished.
They are put forward as total expenditures,
and the contrast made, and financial triumph
claimed. But how is it that Mr.. Chamberlain
could remember to add the police assessments
to the year 1859, and the county tax to the
wear 1868, and forget to add them for the years
1860 and 1869. Let us add the figures and see
the result
c,rrent exnenses 1869 .....-S s1767s 81
Idd county tax ....... 100000
1,11767s 81
Current expenses 1860 $50 @ PSI o. @
Auu f''''' A''''''- - S74s16S 0S
esimr but mTs sses51o 2S