New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-02-09
THE RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

IHE MY Eh AND HdhDOh O'bL'
Tie Z" Big Divide" has been deferred. 1t
would be rash to hope that such Congress
as this will miss its opportunity OF putting ten
millions where it will do the most good"
and the vote taken on Monday seems to ndi-
cate that the passage of the bill was arrested,
not by conscientious convictions or scruples OF
members, but by failure to divide up the ten
millions in q satisfactory manner. The nat
ural remedy is to enlarge the grab. By max
ing the aggregate of plumber $l1. 600 900 or
S12 900 900 there will be room provided for
the satisfaction of four additional members
whose votes are needed, without in any way
skimping the patriots who are already en-
tbusiastic for " the Old fag-and an apprOpria-
ton"
1t is difficult, with gard to many of the
appropriations in this and similar bills, to de-
termine whether they have justification III q
real public need excuse in supposed pubic
need, or no excuse at all, save in the dishonest
greed of members. Beyond all question most
of the money appropriated nominally for river
and harbor Improvement is merely stolen.
Perhaps the member gets no share except
in the political influence which he
dishonesty gains by enabling dishonest
constituents to filch from the Treasury. Or
perhaps he divides the plumber with them.
In many other instances, however, the member
himself takes no dishonest part. and the APP
preparation itself is not dishonest, hut only IL
Judged and wastefu Some public service mny
be rendered by the improvement. and he Is led
to consider that service great enough to jus-
tify the expenditure. But there are other ap-
proprations which are really necessary or
wise, and in most cases the amount 0f money
voted for such Improvements is much smaller
than it should be. The difficulty Is TO deter
mine to which class many OF the apprOpria-
lions belong. Thence sometimes arises the
greater difficulty Of deciding whether MEM
Der is altogether blamcworth.y if he votes for
a hill, in order to secure the really important
improvements for which it provides, at the
risk of permitting some stealing and some
waste in other appropriations whlcA 1T en-
braces. The treatment of these bills by the
press has probably been unwlse, IN one re-
spect; the denunciatiOn has often been too
sweeping, and due regard has not always been
maid to the honorable motives OF the honest
dOubts of members. But there can be little
question that the pending bill ought to be
| beaten, unless greatly changed.
If honorable and intelligent members, whose
votes were recorded in favor of the bill on
| Monday, wish to justify themselves in the
eyes of upright citizens they can do so by
insisting that the bill shall he fairly printed,
ventilated. publicly discussed, and submitted
| to the test of public criticism before they
consent to vote for it again. 1t is an intOl-
cradle scandal to have ten millions voted
away, after the manner adopted last year and
| fnr
,nouiry or discussion. Any bill presented in
such O mode, no matter what worthy features
it may contain, ought to be voted down. The
refusal to give full opportunity for public
criticism Is conclusive proof that the bill is
| full of rascallty. Indeed, the " cOnspicuOusly
| inexact" assertion of Mr.. Reagan, that the
bill appropriated less than the Department had
recommended, ought by itself to have insured
| its defeat. If Congress wishes to vote away
more money than the Department asks, let il
at least have the decency to do so without
| deception, and to state to the country fairly
| the amount of excess, and the reasons for 1t.
But the country has been little
100 much inclined to lay the whole
blame upon Congress- The truth Is
| that the War Department itself supplies
some shadow of excuse for prodig-
ious wastefuness of public money. in the re-
| ports of engineers which are prepared year
| after year. Whoever will carefully examine
| these reports, having knowledge of the actual
commercial importance of the streams and
| harbors which 1t is proposed to improve, will
see that, in not few instances, some other
| feeling than strict regard for the public good
shapes the recommendations made. 1t is not
unnatural that each officer who has charge OF
public work should be prone to convince
himself of its importance, and disposed to see
money supplied literally for its completion.
But the reports from these different officers,
especially when proposed work is of doubt
full utility, are effectively used by interested
persons to convince members of Congress-, and
by members to convince each other, that large
sums OF money ought to be voted. If it were
possible to secure much more strictness, eau.
ton and scrupulOus regard for the pubic well
fare in the reports made to the War Office
the Department wOnld be enabled to make