The Plymouth Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1869-1941, 1870-05-26
and Reform.

The friends Of President Grant have
never claimed fer his administration
any especial merit, except that it was
honest and economical The inlbecility
Of the president. and the weakness of
his cabinet, preclude the possibility of
his most bigotcd partizans claiming for
the present administration anything
ike ability. and as something must be
done to keep the sinking vessel above
7rater YET a little time, the shout OF
economy is echoed all over the land.
Notwithstanding the fact that defal-
cations Of millions of dollars occur year
y with Grants appointees; and the
public lands are being stolen from the
government and given to railroad me
nopoliee at the rate Of millions OF acres
monthly; vet the cry Of economy is
zealously persisted in. And though
his own friends are compelled to raise
their voices against the extravaganza
and corruption vi the various depart
ments, in order to break the force OF
the charge when made by Democrats,
the mass of the party unblushingly pro-
fess to believe that the administration
Is both honest and economical, and in
sist that this spectacle Of radicals charg-
ing radicalism with fraud and extrava-
gance is an evidence that radicals are
honest, and that radicalism means pu-
rity.
We call the especial attention of our
readers to the subjoined proceedings in
congress few days ago, and suggest
that men 50 active IN the " interests of
God aud morality" would hardly exag-
gera;e The enormity of frauds perpetra-
ted By their own beautiful and econom-
ical administration:
The naval appropriation bill was then
taken up in committee Of the whole and
discussed by Messrs. Hale, Morgan and
Scoield
Mr. Morgan condemned the depart
ment for having, in violation OF law,
paid to officers of the navy 33i per
cent on s., 700 600 in addition to their
legal wages.
Mr.. Scofeld contendei that it was
strictly in accordance with law.
Mr.. Morgan continued to dcnounco
the extravaganza of the department,
and was followed by Stevens and Cox.
on the same side.
Mr. Sargent defended the department.
At 100 recess was taken.
At the evening session the committee
Of the whole resumed the consideration
Of the naval bill.
Mr.. Archer defended the navy de-
partment from The charges of extraya-
gance.
Mr. Dawes attacked the department
for It's antagonism to the law-making
power, and said that for the last ten
years, excluding those of the war, the
average appropriation for the navy was
less By 81 900, 900 than the amount ap-
propriated in this bill, and yet the de
partment wanted $4,000, 900 more
The complaint that the laW-mahiua
power had the right to make against
the navy department was that with the
money furnished, the navy was in tho
bad condition described Why was il
that the United States navy cost three
or four times as much as the navy d
Great Britain!
Mr.. Hale asked whether everything
did not cost twoor three times as much
as in Great Britain.
Mr.. Dawes went on To say that the
United States navy, though consisting
Of only 8 800 men. cost SIS, POS 81
while the estimate for the British navy
last wear, which consisted II 6:3 600
men, was only f9000,O00 Every YES
sci in the United States navy cost an
average annually Of $138,9 14, and IL
the British navy $4,000. Every tor
in the tonnage of the United States
cost an average of s151 10 per annum
and in the British navy S72 Go. II
keep the American navy afoat, to keer
it in repair costs $500 man, while the
British navy costs but $50 man t.
keep it up to the standard. The United
States navy department had estimated
s6,975, 900 for repairs, while the esti
mates of the British navy for the year
ending March 81, 1870, for new ma
ehinery and repairs, was but 1921. Al