Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1880-08-27
OER .STATE EXPENSES.
The Defamcr's "Bottom Facts" show
Up.

er resorted last week in It's effort to break
the force of the Hon. j. L. Martins speech
showing the utter groundlessness Of the Dem
ooratic charges of waste and proAigacy in the
management Of our State affairs, would be
simply amazing were it not for the fact that
that "reform" sheet so constantly practices
that sort of newspaper gymnastics that the
public have come to look upon its antics rs a
matter of course, and to attach no sort Of i'm
portanco or significance to them. When
driven to the wall by indisputable facts and
figures the DCfdmer never hesitates to give
the lie direct to its past assertions, and in
vent new "facts" to suit the occasion. This
is precisely what it did in this matter Of our
State expenditures.
In his speech in Brattleboro on the evening
of the nth inst, Mr. Martin replied in detail
to the Democratic charges Of extravaganza
and corruption in the management of our
State affairs, fortifying every position by
facts and figures from the reports of State Of
ficcrs, which any person was at liberty to YER
ify for himself if he chose. In the statement
of these plain figures Mr.. Martin showed CON
clusvely, as the summary OF his remarks in
our last issue proves, that the policy of the
Republicans has ever been in the direction of
wise and intelligent economy, and that
when a strictly equitable balance between
tho expenditures for 1866 or 1867, and those
for 1879, is struck, the balance is in favor Of
the latter year 10y more than 500, 900. Fur
Their than this, Mr.. Martin showed that the
sum of S279, 600 at which the Democratic
platform places the State expenses in the
years "nfter the war has no foundation in
Legitimate figures and had its origin in the
brain of the person who wrote or presented
the resolution naming this round sum of
$4,000. The person who presented this
resolution in the Democratic State conven-
ton, Let us here say, was Mr. Chas. N. Dav-
export, the senior editor and proprietor of
the DJdm6r and the person who wrote il
was his son, the junior editor and proprietor
| (so-called).
How, then, does this model Democratic
reform" sheet meet these indisputaJle facts
and figures and the damaging revelation last
named? With bubble, evasion and falsifca.
lion, after its usual custom. Paying no at
tention to Mr.. Martins demonstration of a
better showing in State expenditures by more
than 800, 600 in 1879 than in 1866 or 1867.
the DJomer editor lodges this point by pre-
tending that Mr.. Martin only made out "a
difference of Sli, 600 between himself and the
Democratic statement"
From this point he proceeds to unblushng-
ly abandon every previous position by af-
frming that the year 1866 lis not fair
year for a test'-Hnd this in full view of the
fact that 1866 was the year which he, Of his
own accord, selected for purposes of compar-
ison in his issue Of Aug q, just two weeks
previous. I'm 1866, the Ultdmtr editor says.
some Of the auditors orders were to pay
war bills, but I'm 1867, the accounts were
well classified" The fact is that in 1866,
precisely as in 1867, the accounts were accur-
ntely classified, and that it is perfectly easy
to separate the various items in that year and
determine what ones were on account Of war
expenditures.
In this article to which we refer tho De-
Jdmer's energies are especially directed to the
connection Of some figures on which to base
lis round sum Of S279 coo, cited in the Dem
ocratic platform as the State expenses for
year after the war" To accomplish this its
editor quotes the auditors orders" for 1867
at SlG3, 23s 60. As showing the reliability
of this statement, as well as Of all the Dc-
tdmer's statements when it attempts to talk
about State expenditures, let us state unc-
quivocaly that the auditors account for
1867 shows no such figures for orders drawn
as this sum of SlG3, 23S. G3. Turning to the
auditors report for that year we find that
beginning on page 10, with the date OF Sept
Il, 1866, n detailed statement of auditors or
ders for the fiscal year is given. This state
IN ont or list Of orders drawn, covers 30 pages,
on ding on page &c, with the orders drawn
under date Of Aug. 81, 1867. The footing is
SI94, j33. 80. Then follows classification
OF auditors orders, constituting, in effect, a
trial balance, aud on page ~ this sum of
sl9i, 533 80 is repeated, thus proving its cor
re ctnoss The difference between this sum
of S19i, 533.39, representing the actual
amount of auditors orders drawn in 1867, and
the Defdmor's pretended sum of SlG3, 23S. G3
is S3l, 29i. 20. This, we distinctly say, is a
fair sample Of the Dctdmd's correctness,
fairness and reliability whenever it writes on
State issues. 1t is of the same piece as the
tactics followed by that sheet, or its proprie-
tors, and shown up by us last week in origin
ally arriving at this pretended sum Of S2T9,.
OOO-it being fact denial of which VIC
challenge, that, in order to figure out sum
even approximating this S279, 900, as the ex-
penses of year after the war, " they eJclud.
!, cd all appropriations for the payment of the
State debt and interest thereon, for reforma-
} tory institutions, and for increased expendi-
| Co. 10 oF 10 Al,
} 1867, and iHoluded all such appropriations in
} the estimate for 1879! What reliance can be
placed on statements thus deliberately gar
} bed and falsfed?
Not word did the DeJdmer say of Mr.
: Martins statement of the complete and
searching methods adopted by the last legis
: lature, at the instance of Republican mem
bers, to secure a thorough revision of the
laws, with special reference to reducing cour
: expenses to the lowest practicable limit, stop
ping leaks and looping of every real or pre-
3 tended abuse in this department. This poin
0 the DeJdmer editor glides over and covers VI
by accusing Mr.. Martin of "disingenuous
4 ness" in treating the matter of abuses in the
l "sherih's departments" and in doing this h,
< accuses the sherifs of the State, in conniv
. ance with politician lawyers" of annual!
i robbing the State of thousands of dollars 10y
a corrupt practices in the summoning of wit
Q nesses-a charge which has no foundation in
@ fact, and to substantate which we have else
Q where challenged our noighbor to produc
4 the first item Of actual evidence.
Met and refuted at every point, this youth
full performer" could only wind up his col
umn of evasion and misstatement by the gen
n eral charge that vermont is rapidly becom
! ing one of the worst misgoyerned States il
! the Union"-a charge which every true Ver
. mnnter who sneaks from actual knowledge