The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-10-05

| Let us now come from the nperopriatlons u
tho expenditures, and test tho accuracy OF MT
ChamDerlain's statements. ,o-o
Under tho caption of ssTaIation IN 1888 ano
in 1868, an increase of s1S6 600 only" Mr.
| Cbambc, lnin puts the State and police tax foi
1850 nj ss57, 600, and the State and county
| tnx for 1868 at 81. 100000. 1t is manifest that
| he docs not intend to contrast taIduonS. fo1
tho difference between 1857 900 and 81 ,5oO 0cO s
not s13G, 600, but sG4S 0OJ, and his own figures
would contradict him. L. is expendsures PEI n,
which he compares. and here ls Mr.. Cham
berlain's first error, for the S6S5 900. which he
| pivcs as the general tax, was not collected, and
Of course could not have been expended. II
| Mr.. Chamberlain had referred to the report
from which he extracted the S635, 900, ne would
have seen that the actual tax received was
| 5000, IA 20. The difference may bs regarded
as too small to merit attention, but we are 80
Door that oven that trihe is important.
or the 81. SOC, 600, Mr. Chamberlain says that
$500 600 "was appropriated" to pay accrued
| interest on tho public debt. He then says TINT
| $3.50, 900 OF this amount ls charGeanio 10 Sic ,
| old administration, and tho other S2ooooo OF
| interest ho deducts "from the aggregate OF
| taxes Levied" Just US ii it had been paid from
those tayos. His assertion really is, that the
S150 OO0 was paid from tho taxes. Now, L
aasort that not ono dollar was paid from the
| taycs for interest, during tho fiscal year 1868
| bavo carefully examined the receipts and pay
mcnts ut tho treasury for that year, ana tnefe
is not one single entry for interest, anh Mr..
Chamb, rlain's deduction OF s25G,0 ,0O0 ls utterly
unwarrautcd.
The truth is that $500 600 was appropriated
10 nav interest on tho public debt, i'll the gen.
eral appropriation, bit by another act, August
26, 1868 bonds to tho amonnt OF one million OF
dollars were authorized to be issued for pay
mcnt of interest, and authority was giVcn TO
sell tho bonds, and MIR. Chamberlain IN IN nns iIs
s3ecch SAYS, sof these bonds about s6'o,0OO
have been used thus far" The interest was
mi mid from tho taxes, but from the bonds.
and MIR. Chamberlain's statement Ia not only
conlradicted By the, official records, but Is IN
consistent with another statement III tho same
speech.
lures for the years 1850 and lS69. ana from
those Of The latter year makes several detiuc-
tions. among them interest OIL tho pupnc
Jsht .keeauso in 1859 and 1860, that interest
was paid wholly by tho Bank OF the state;
and Mr.. chamberlain challenges the denlai or
fins statemcnt Tho challenge il easily nct.
nv reference To tho comptrol!or-generais re-
port for October I, 1859, pages 70 ana ~, II VIII
bo seen that tllero was paid IN that year LOT
interest," OH State debt, VIZ: SIX per cont stoch
new capital s39, ,429 90, and six DGr cent stock
now capital S29.G7O; total sGS O99 81; and
il; MIR: Chamberlain, when examining the
acknowledgements report for tho same year,
to ascertain the general tax, had only looked
at page OF the report he would haVo seen the
following: "During tho last fiscal year II Dc-
came necessary 10 raise by taxatich so3 ooo 10
meet tho payment OF interest on inc Donas anu t,l
stocks of the new capitol. and during Inc
present year to raise $S7 600 for tho samu pur-
poso." Or il MIR. Chamberlain, while looking
over The expenditures for the year .endinE
October. 1860, had been at all inquisItlYe, lio
would have found this item Interest mt res 90 on
bonds and stocks for new capltol S92,592 6O.
Or, il hc had oven looked at the estimates lor
thc ye,r commencing October 1860, no would
hay1 seen "for interest on 81 S50.0d0 of State
capllol bonds and stocks Sill COO; interest on
BIuo Ridge bonds LOCO; total 81 000. Aud
yet il is rrayoly said that 'the interest Was
paid wholly by tho Bank oil the S.ato." WIli
Mr, Chamberlain admit that his statement IL
erroneous, and that speech intended TO en-
lighten, docs actually mlsloadI
Apain. Mr.. Chamberlain says that the cur
rent eyoenses OF tho State for 1863 were ST.
From this ho deducts-For extraordinary
EXPENSES, s147.OO0; for interest, 35o 6y5 oo.
Total, 1886, ,693 &c. and obtained S6l7,b'o o4 as
tho current expenses OF the Slate.
T havo already shown that Mr.. Chamber
lain's assertion re atIve to the lnterost IL con-
tradicLcd by tho proofs; but he commits m more n
sorious error when we contrast the S5i9. .Z3l w
nf 1860 with the $617, CTS 81 OF 1869. Well may
he cyclain, II am willing on all occasions I'D
let these figures stand fair and undimlnsticu J.
But propose to show that, consistently VIII
the truth, they cannot stand. BronGht 10 'he
test thoy will be diminished. ,.,
They aro pnt forward as total expenditures
and the contrast made and u financial triumph
claimed Eut how is it that MIR. Chamberlain
could remember TO add the police ussess,nents
To the wear 1859, and tho county tax TO ti'c
wear 1868 and forget to add them for tho years
1850 and 1869. Let us add tho figures and sce
G,',,r,,'i tsu nr,onscs 1869 $617. 7.G79 81
AL o,,,nin toyas 500 00O
LII CTS 81
Current expenses
1860. s5l9. .251 CO
Add police assoss-
h'cn'' '''''',''' -DMo D " s74s, ,16s O6
NJ