Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1878-07-16
From the New York Times.
Fraud, or Extravaganza.

this year for the extravagancein Congress.
His speech on the appropriations for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1878, nomi-
nally delivered in the House, June 10,
was m elaborate tissue of misrepresents-
ton. Ii was a laborious attempt TO
show that democratic rule in the House
had been economical. But, if we COM
pare Mr. Atkins, claim in behalf of his
party with Mr.. Randall's well known
promises Of retrenchment, the difference
between the promise and the ful6llment
is ludicrously disproportionste Mr.. Ran
dali claimed 10 be able TO save sac, 600, 900
a year for an indefinite period. Mr.. At
kins now claims to have saved SO, 600, 900;
and the process by which he reaches this
conclusion is more ingenious than honest.
He argues that the deficiencies Of S14,-
100000, which were voted at the late
session of Congress should not be charged
to the account Of that session. Dehcien-
cies must be provided for at every ses-
sion, he urges, and some Of these defcien-
cies belong to period anterior to the
coming into the House of a democratic
majority Then, again, he urges, the
fishery award, the increase in the pension
roll and various other items, ought to be
deducted from the sum total OF the sppro-
priations ordered by the democratic
House. But, when all reasonable deduc-
tions are made, it will be found that the
democrats, at the late session, not only
did not save as much money as was anna
ally saved by the House when under re-
publican control, but they exceeded in
profuseness Of expenditure any Congress
since 1865.
The republicans were In majority m
the House when the appropriations for
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1876,
were voted. The democrats have man.
aged the appropriations ever since We
have shown, over and over again, that
the democrats during the first year Of
ascendency in the House did not econo-
mne or reuench; they Withheld appropri-
atoms This year the committee OF which
Dir Atkins is chairman were anxious TO
make iAlr showing, in order that the
party coald claim more retrenehment" IN
the Congressional elections But the
committee were confronted with the nc.
cessity Of providing for the enormous
deficiencies made by Mr.. Randall's disin-
Eenuous demsgogism. Ii was as If Board
Of Railroad Directors, coming into office,
should be obliged to provide for the pay
ment OF dividends declared by preyi-
Gus board, but which had never been
earned A comparison between the
appropriations Of the last year Of republ-
c2n rule and the present year OF demo-
cratic rule will show how hollow are the
democratic pretensions Of retrenchment
and reform. In conformity with their
plan 70 reduce the Governmental expendi-
lures as rapidly as possible,the republicans
saved the amount of $40, l23, 600 in ap-
preparations for the year ending June 80,
1876 Mr. Atkins, with all his ingenious
ST. aiming and twisting, has not been able
to claim for his party during the session
Just now ended, : greater reduction Of
expenditures than S9,000,0O0 Even
this sum melts away when Mr.. Atkins's
absurd figures are examined.
Let US compare few of these annual
appropriations The total appropriations
for the year 1876, including the De6cien-
CT bills, we're $751;, 2S3,l55, as reported
to the House by the Appropriations Com
mittee This year the same committee
reported to the House Appropriation bills
amounting to Sl63, 2S3, 675, which shows
AZ excess Of about SIT, 900, 600. or. with
out the deficiency bills, (sl4,5 34 ,672) an
excess Of about 81, 100000. The ap-
preparations, as they finally became law,
for the year ending June 80, 1877 amount
ing to sl4S,535,79S. For the year end
June 80, there was appropriated Sl72,-
SO ,692; and yet Mr.. Atkins claims that
his committee and his party in the House
have saved 100000 for the country
The 6gures show that, comparing the APP
propriAtiOns Of the Democratic House,
when it was going before the country
on sham pretense Of reform, With
those of the House when the election
had passed, the Democratic House in its
last estate actually appropriated s24 ,OiO-
SS9 IN excess Of It's previous acts. If
we literally deduct from the expenditures
authorized by the late session two Of the
large items claimed by Mr. Atkins-the
fishery award and the de6ciencies-we
shall yet 6ud that there is al excess Of
about 100000 in the appropriations
as compared with those OF 1876. 1t Is
absurd to claim, as Mr.. Atkins does, that
one halt Of the river and hsrbor sppro-
priation should be deducted when the
work Of this year Is compared with that
Of previous years. To be sure, there was
no Each appropriation made las, year, but
there was this year, and in 1876, with
which years figures We have Just made a
comparison.
OF all dishonest and palpably false
pretenses, that Of the Democrats that
this years enormous deficiencies should
be distributed over previous years is the
thinnest Ii is true that the deficiency
of l4.5O0.O00, or more, just voted by
Congress, is chargeable to previous Dem
ocratiS failures to appropriate. If any
part of this belonged 10 a Republican
administration Of the finances, why was
/ II not nroyided for M some one Of the