Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-14
Refrnnchmenf.


A bill came up to appropriate $350,000
for public buildings at Albany. Mr.. Farms
worth ridiculed the idea of necessary public
work not being undertaken because of the
business engagements of the supervising
| arCh Infect of the Treasury,who had so much
to do at Washington in the Office to which
the President had appointed him as mem
Der of the city Board on Public works.
The proper person to whom the erection of
public buildings should be intrusted was a
reputable architect residing in the locality.
The bill was advocated by Shellabarger,
Tyner and Potter, and it was stated in the
course of the discussion that the bill was
test question to be applied to Other-placeS
where public buildings were asked for, and
the aggregate of which, according to Gar
field, would amount to about twenty mil
lion dollars.
Mr.. Garfield made an appeal to the House
not TO pass the bill, because after it there
would come in bills for Cincinnati, Column
bus, Newark, San Francisco, and other
cities. For the public works of the United
States had last year S15, 4l3,903 appropria-
ted, and after the Secretary Of the Treasury
had cut down the estimates for the coming
year as low as he thought they ought to be
cut down, the total was swelled to $40 1885,
600, not including Chicago or st. Louis.
The cost of the public buildings was already
% per cent. of all the civil expenses of the
Government.
Mr.. Conger replied to Mr.. Garfield, and
argued in support of the pending bill, and
of like bills for Port Huron, Michigan, and
other cities.
Mr.. Garfield called for the yeas and nays,
but they were refused, and the bill passed
without division.
Tea and Coffee.
Mr.. Dawes, Chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means, reported bill to re-
peal the import duties on tea and coffee in
obedience to the order of the House yes
terday, and he asked leave to make a state
ment and to request the House to have the
bill recommitted.
Mr.. Murcur objected.
Our Navy.
Mr.. Dawes thereupon declined to report
the bill as he was not permitted to make a
preliminary statement, and the House went
into Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union and took up the Naval appro-
priation bill on which debate was limited
to p hours.
MI I1dlc3 WIZ IGpOAbCu Jllc Dllly Optlcu
the discussion. The reduction of Govern
ment expenditures, he said, was demanded
by the people and by a majority of the
House, but such reduction was of little ac-
count if it were merely spasmOdic. 1t must
be regular from year to year. The total
amount appropriated for the current fiscal
year was $17,784,717, being a saving of
$1,S00,000 in favor of the fiscal year ending
Ill IL. Al
sum contained in the bill would cover all
the expenses of the Navy Department, and
that no deficiency bill would be asked for
The cost Of the navy for the
seven years preceding the war was
as follows: 1855, $14,51S,000; 1856,
Sl5,971, 900; 1857, Sl4,480,000; 1858,
S15,6Ss,OOO; 1859, S15,347,000; 1860,
Sl4,077 900; 1861, Sl4 $4,000; so that the
averange annual expenditure for those years
of peace, and cheapest Democratic admins
tration, was about $I5,000,000. He invited
comparison between that rate ofseXpendi-
ture and the present rate.
Mr.. Conner referred to the fact that the
navy had been gradually decreasing, until
now we had
But TWenty-nine Vessels in Commits
sion,
mounting $50 guns, and asked Mr.. Hale to
harmonic his statement with that fact.
Mr.. Hale said the gentleman from Texas
was altogether too impatient. He would
refer to that point when he came to it. He
mentioned that the number of men to
which the navy was limited was $500, while
the British had $1,000 men, and if the
nation should get in war it would be inn
possible to send out three additional
vessels, all fully armed with the present
force TO which the navy was limited. He
admitted that there had been Appropriated
Five Hundred Millions
for the Navy during the four years of the
war, and that the people hld A right to
know what became Of that money and of