New-York tribune., 1872-08-07
THE EXECUTIVE EXPENDITURES.

MIR. William "A. hlCDalu5Ont ACilhB DcCIctdlJ
of the Treasury, i'll very ingenious letter
which we publish in full in another column
attempts to cast discredit on THE TRIBUNE'S
statement that the expenditures of the Execu-
tive were $1S,7O9472 during the first two years
of President Grants Administration, against
$12 S56,220 for the two years Immediately pre-
ceding, showing an increase OF nearly
$G,OOO,OOO, or about fifty per cent. Mr.. Rich
ardson's first trick is to refer with great pOmp
and circumstance to chapter and verse of the
Treasury reports for the expenditures OF
the years 1867 and 1868, whereas the
two years taken by us were 1863
and 1869, as we stated distinctly in no less
than four different places in the brief article
in which the comparison occurs. Mr.. johnson
went out of Office March 4, and the fiscal year
ended June 80. If President Grant had been
Parsimony incarnate he could not have re-
trenched much in four months; but, as the
record shows, if any injustice is done in the
premises, johnson is the sufferer by our
piecing out this year with four months of the
new Administration However, by this bit of
legerdemain the shrewd Richardson RECEIVERS
So, 100000 of the sum by which Grants econ
omy runs behind Johnson's. He makes up the
rest and comes out $3,3OO,OOO ahead in a man
ner still more astonishing.
The people of the United States learn from
Mr.. Richardson for the first time, that in
the expenditures of the Executive in the first
two years of the Grant Administration there
is included the sum of S5,G90,312 04 for the
expenses incident to carrying into effect
national loans" He also tells us that there
was expended for the same purpose S3,8O4,39
in the years 1867 and 1863, but that these sums
are not included under the head of the
Executive, but appear as separate items under
the head of Miscellaneous" Mr.. Richard
son reasons that the said loan expenditures
ought respectively either to be deducted from
Grants years or added to Johnsons. In
either case Grant comes out $3,340,0OO
ahead This certainly works beauti-
fully; and here we take occasion to
remark, by way of digression, that if we cannot
compare the Executive expenditures of one
Finance report with those of another without
striking on our head when we thought we
were safely on our feet, the Finance reports
are of very doubtful utility. AS a measure of
economy we would suggest that their publica-
ton be omitted, No wonder the Treasury
OFFICIALS pOOU-pOOu dJ VI
Millions are as farthings to them. AS Che
materialistiG and selfish phil2sOp4er. Hobbies
said Of words, these Treasury men may say of
millions Said Hobbies, "Words are the
counters of wise men. but the money Of
fools" Millions are the counters of these
wise Treasury clerks; they are the money of
the dOltish people.
A trfing criticism suggests itself to us in
the midst Of our admiration at tbe adroitness
with which an excess of six millions is trans
formed into a deficiency of three and a half
AND That Is the circumstance that in the fiscal
years 1870 aud 1871 no national loans were
negotiated, if we except about sj9,6G9,1 $50 of
the new hves of 1881, the charges for which
are duly entered in the expenditures for the
year 1871, under the head of Miscellaneous y
In the years 1857 and 1868 hundreds of mil
lions OF hye-twentles were placed, upon which
large commissions had to be paid by the
Government, in addition to the costs of man
ufacturing, advertising, &c. Perhaps il is
owing to the fact that no new bonds of the
United States, with the execution above
noted were issued in the years 1870 and
1871 that the entries of "expenses
" incident to carrying into effect national
"loans" are not found where we should
naturally expect TO see them. At all events
it is this fact which makes Mr.. Richardson's
disclosures 80 interesting to us. Upon refer
ring TO his letter again we find. in parcnthesis.