Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-04-18


fest, and it is shown what is and ought to
have come into the Treasury of the United
States there will be in the neighborhood OF
one thousand million dollars collected in ex-
cess of the expenditures of the Govern
ment by Gen. Grant during the period of
his administration; and yet you cannot and
! will not be able to show for and during that
| time reduction of the public debt OF more
than $350,000,000. Sir, | charge that that
par y who have Wrung from the weary, pa
tent labor of the country in the three years
of his administration nearly one billion
dollars over the net expenditures of the
| Government, should have reduced the pub
lie debt and the public interest account in a
much larger sum than is shown by the
monthly partisan statement laid before the
country. And when l say a much larger
sum, mean fully one hundred per cent.
over and above what they show and claim
as a credit to this Administration.
But, sir, come back with view Of
calling the attention of the committee to
the net expenditures of the Government, to
which have referred for the purpose of
inquiring whether they have been made
with economy or not. On the other hand,
am prepared to make the charge and sus-
the government in former periods of its his
tory that there has been gross extravaganza
and prohigacy in these expenditures, and
with view of showing that fact l beg your
attention to what the expenses of the Gov
eminent were during the war of 1872, dur
ing the war with Mexico, and during the
whole Of Mr.. Buchanan's administration,
and with view Of making the extraVa-
gance of this administration palpable and
appreciable. l do not take the general
items, but l call the attention of the cnm-
mittee especially to the expenditures during
the periods to which l refer for and on
account of the War Department and the
Navy Department. In the years 1912,
1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916, the expenses of
the Government on account of the War
Department amounted to So, 627 900. The
expenses Of the Navy Department during
those years amounted to $50, 900. |
pause moment to state that during
period of peace under Gen. Grant for two
years the expenses of the Government for
the War Department amounted to 500, 49,
600, $1l,000,000 in excess of what the
War Department cost the Government dur
ing the period of the war with Great Britain
of 1872, and including two years in addi-
ton thereto. In the Navy Departmentthe
expenses during Gen. Grants administra-
ton for two years amounted to SAL, 100000
compared with 10000, 900 during the war of
1872.
Again, sir, during the war with Mexico
the expenses of the War Department
amounted TO $8S,499,000, being $5,O0O,OOO
less than it has taken to administer the
War Department in time of profound peace
under Gen. Grant, and when l speak of the
expenses of the War Department during the
war with Mexico, speak of four years, in
GLIDING the entire administration of Presi-
dent Polk. During the same period the ex-
penditures of the Navy Department were
$50, $50, 900, whereas during time ofpeace,
under Gen. Grant, the expenditures have
amounted to S4l, 100000. In other words,
in gross sums the cost of the War and NAVY
Department during the five years, including
the war with Great Britain, amounted to
$l30,000,000 in round numbers; during the
the war with Mexico to $122,090,OOO; and
during period ofpeace in two years during
Gen. Grants administration they amounted
to SI34,000,0OO.
Now, sir, during the period of Mr.. Buch-
anan's administration the total Of eXpendi-
lures was $32S, 49,, 266. The total expen-
diIures during two years of Gen. Grants
administration have amounted to S1,l27,-
PA, sos. But, sir, in both of these items
ale included what is paid upon the public
debt and upon the public interest account
and upon the pension account. With a
view of testing the question of extravagance
and proficiency have separated the items,
and l call the attention of the committee to
the expenses during Mr.. Buchanan's admin
istration on account OF the War DEPART
ment, on account of the Navy DEPART
ment, on account of the Indian Bureau,
and the miscellaneous expenses of the Gov
eminent.
During the whOleOf Mr.. Buchanan's ad-
ministration the expenses upon these ac-
counts were in the aggregate S256, 7Sl 900.
Now, for the same items of service during
the two years of Gen. Grants administra-
ton, the expenditures were S259, 321 600.
In other words, it has cost the people for
the same items of service s., 539, 436 more
to run their Government under the rule of
military rings for two years, than it did
for four years when they themselves had
control.
Now, when l state this balance, it does
not include the vast Sums of money referred
to by the Representative from the State of
Kentucky, { Mr.. Beck the immense sums
of money derived by the Navy Department
from the sale of material, and by the War
Department from the same source, and
which is estimated by the gentleman from
Kentucky to amount to hundreds of mil
lions of dollars; and when you add that to
the balance l have shown, l submit to you
that your Government is profigate and ex-
tray3gant in its expenditures.
1t should cost no more per capita now to
run the Government than heretofore. Why
should there be now any increase in the eX-
penSeS of the Government =? Am | to be
told it is because of the additional cost of
living? Who added to that cost of living?
From whence comes it, except from your
ruinous, oppressive mode of assessing and
collecting your revenue, and for which the
party in power is responsible? Why, sir
the population Of this country in 1860, in
round numbers, was thirty-one million;
1870 it was thirty-eight million, an increase
of about twenty-five per cent. Yet it is
shown by reference to the figures l have
submitted, and which are quoted from the
official records of the country, that the cost
of administering your Government has not
merely kept pace with the percentage of in
crease of population, but, on the contrary,
has trebled that percentage of increase.
l return to the immediate question before
US, and ask, why is it necessary that you
should keep up and maintain the army as
it is now? Is there anything in the atti-
tude of your neighbors? Is there anything
in the increased hostility or in the numbers
of your Indians? For what purpose is the
increase in your army kept up and main
taiLedl Is it to control the ballot-box? Is
it to enforce the pro isions of your bayonet
law? Is it to destroy the liberties of the
people? Sir, look to its present employ
ment? Go down within the borders of the
State of Texas, and within the borders of
her sister Southern States, and then tell me
for what purpose your army is kept there.
Is it not in violation Of the principles upon
which your government is based? Is it not
at war with the idea that the government
must be sustained by reason and law, and
not by force?
Mr.. Dickey-Will the gentleman allow
me to ask him question?
Mr.. Whtthorne. Yes, sir.
Mr.. Dickey. How much of this vast sum
did Tennessee ever pay?
Mr.. Whitthorne. Well, sir, when you
come to strike the account, debit and credit,
l think she has paid little more in proper
IL