Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1881-04-29
porto obaff oGimes
PORT TOBACCO:
Friday Morning, April 29th, 1881.
Defence Loan and the "Bombshells. 8

We have been reading the different
"bomhshells' carefully with sincere de-
humiliation, to ascertain the extent to
which the State treasury has been ode
spoiled" by the Democratic party, being
willing and anxious to know the whole
truth, painful though it might be, and to
inform our readers upon the subject. The
Hagerstown Mail in its preliminary ex
ploSion Of April 1st, after charging the
Democratic party with ''despoiling" the
treasury" said 1.-The defence loan of 81
100000 was contracted, and taxes levied
for the purpose. (of redeemiag it within
Is years. The debt natures in 1888, and
there is almost nothing in the treasury to
pay it with. The tares scere spent for other
purposes, and we must negotiate another
loan to pay its, 100000"
His Excellency, the Governor, in one OF
his auxiliary "bombshells' is reported as
saying that the Comptroller's report show
ed that the Ubiquitous ring" had expend
ed over six millions of dollars for bounties
while the expenditure OF only four mil
lions had been authorized by law.
Unless we seriously misconstrue the
Comptroller's report and the laws bearing
upon this question, both the Governor
and his organ are laboring under mis-
understanding with regard to this bounty
question, and have both put forth un-
founded assertions with regard to it.
First as to the Governors charge. The
Comptroller's report, in statement IN" on
pages 21 and %, does show that $685.
36s 16 has been paid for bounties, and
that including interest on loans, commits
sions and other incidental expenses, the
total expenditure in this behalf has been
$500, 53S O5. But we have been unable
to fad the law that limits the expenditure
for bounties to 100000, or any other
sum. We may have overlooked it, but
we have failed to find it. 1t is true that
the loan authorized by the act of1S64 was
limited to $4,000,000, but we do not find
that the appropriations for the payment Of
the bounties provided tor in the different
acts was ever restricted to the funds to be
derived from this loan. These! acts de-
signated the class of volunteers and draft
ed men to whom bounties were to be paid,
and provided for their pay ment by the
Comptroller and Treasurer 'out Of any an
appropriated funds in the treasury The
expenditures made by the treasury Off
GERS in this behalf have been in strict con-
formity with the bounty acts. The Comp
trolle1's report shows that from the crea-
ton of this bounty in 1864, up to the re-
peal of the bounty acts in 1880, the pre-
scribed bounties were paid to 1927 vol
unteers and drafted men, and 1859 owners
of slaves were compensated in conformity
with the provisions of the act. The Comp
troller says in his report, mo claim was
paid without the closest scrutiny Of the
proofs presented, and except when there
was No other alternative than to comply
with the laws" So that unless we are Sc
riously mistaken the Governor is misin-
formed on this question, and has made
charges against the party that elected him
to Office that he cannot substaptiats. Chis,
discrepancy appears to result solely rom
the failure ofthe Legislatures that created
the bounties to properly estimate the ex-
tent of the burden they were entailing up
on the treasury, and TO authorize loan
sufficiently large to provide an adequate
fund to discharge it. So much f,r this
"bombshsll,"
Now with regard to the Nails statement
that the party to which it processes to be-
long has "despoiled the treasury" by
spending" the bounty taxes "tor other
purposes" and leaving the defense lean
unredeemed, the same table of the report,
if we censtrue it properly, proves that
statement to be also without foundation
1t appears from that table of the report,
as We have already stated, that, in pursu
ance of the bounty acts, the sum Of S.
522, 53s 05 has been paid out of the treas
into force up to the act of 1880, which re-
pealsd the bounty laws went into opera
ton. The same table shows the total re-
ceipts from the bounty tax, during the
sixteen years it has existed, to have been
$4,O57, O40 90; the receipts from the sale
Of the defense loan bonds of act of 1864,
to have been $526,1S5 90; the receipts
from the sale Of the defense loan bonds of
acts of 1865 and 1868, to have been So
964, 295 As; and the receipts from repay
ments by commissioners, agents, &C., dur
ing the existence of the bounty laws, to
have been S136,s37 6s; making total
disbursement in this behalf Of IS, 6s4, 359.-
90, and showing an excess ofreceipts from
all sources over the necessary disburse-
ments required by the bounty acts to be
only $161,s21 O4.
The total amount of Defense Loan
bonds authorized to be issued, if we un-
derstand the laws, was $4,501 900. The
first loan authorized by Act of 1864, was
limited to 81, ooo,O 900, but after $5O1 900
of the bonds authorized by this Act had
been negotiated, the Legislature of 1865,
repealed the law authorizing the loan, and
stepped further issues under it, and au-
thorized new loan of 100000. 1t ap-
pears from the table of the Comptroller
report referred to, that the aggregate sum
of 81, 400, 4s0,45, was received from the
sale of the bonds authorized by beth Of
the Acts mentioned, so allowing for pre-
miums received upon these bends, it
would not appear that this loan was ne