The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-09-28
Expenditures,
Total revenue. less pensions
and interest.
Years.


1t will be seen that the figures which are given
by himself prove that while the expenditures IN
OF A MILLION OF DOLLARS MORE THAN he STATES,
viz, $107 1926 433 o. the like ths year
sl2O OOuOOO, or SAC, 900 600 LESS THAN HE STATES.
Mr. Tucker declares most gush1ngly thai :" dur.
nag tie period NJ Democratic ascemde,scy in t4ts
H0uxe reduced less pensions and In
terest, TO about $l07 by which he probably
means $40, 43s 1915 but he fails to add that
the said "pertod Of Democratic ascendency" ex-
tended beyond 1878 that 1t from 1876 to 1884, in
elusive, and he especially falls to add That during
the period e Democratic 0scemde~cy in this House.,
the Democrats ran such expenditures ~, agotn from
in 1873 to $l26 49S, 452 1879, uasd SIPS
LA, $50, In 1881
DEMOCRATIC SHAM ECoNoMY-ITs CONSEQUENCES.
Nor does Mr.. Tucker say one word about the stern
rebuke the Democratic party received at the polls
in 1878 for the "sham economy and "cheese-par-
ing policy" adopted by his party during that per
Tod of Democratic ascendency Ill this House., to
which he boastingly alludes. docs he forgeG that
the Sam Randall ECONOMY" OF that period con-
sisted in cutting down the wages Of government
laborers, messengers, and clerks carefully avoiding
reductionin the pay OF member OF Congress That
during that PERIOD upon the adJournment OF nearly
ton were crowded with napless people discharged
from the lower grades Of departmental service, and
thar the corridors OF the great departmental build
ings echoed the watling OF poor women suddenly
bereft Of all chance to earn scant livelihood for
themselves and suffering families? AS was well
said at the time:
sit may be regarded as the special triumph Of
this Democratic policy that in this cutting down OF
priced laDOrorS CLERKS, DOtn as TO pay
and numbers employed, the poor scrubbing women
engaged at the public buildings reduced In the
greatest proportion, and many were discharged
At time even the proportions for aborers at the
capitol were withheld. So that there no lawful
way in which men enough could be employed to
clean up the Nth expectorated by the Democracy in
the halls through which the wives of Senator's cab
met officers foreign ministers, or even the wife OF
the President could walk to reach the place assign
| ed to them in the galleries OF Congress-
And it was this Democratic "sham economy OF
1878 Of which Mr.. Tucker brags, that reduced the
Democratic majority in the next House, and turned
the Democrats out Of power altogether IN 1881. II
was onense in the nOstrtS OF the nation, ana II
spewed them out Of its mouth IN disgust: a,s,n,
Again, Mr.. Tucker, while pointing al his d1slngen
uous array Of figures, excla1ms:
"Sse hoo tend to,ertraoag9mce as our revenues
increase r. During this period OF his Democratc
statement takes especial pains to deduct the de-
creasing interest the public debtand 10 make no
account of the increasing amount Tor PENSIONS con-
tentne his conscience by the unwilling and soto
ooce admission at Its end that this increase oI
expenditure ut true is largely dor arrears or
enough for fairness Of statement The 1act is tnat
It is entirely the increased expenditures for
pensions as the table compiled from his own official
| figures viii show. From those figures II 10 plain
that with scarcely exception the pubic interest
item decreased IRON year " year ,ro an
the pensions item has increased from year 70 year.
| from 1878 to the present time 1t cannot De que,
them to the constantly decreasing interest
mnst therefore be due to the increasing pensions
item, II It can be shown that the annual total ex
pendltures less those two items are not increasing
| This the table we have given shows clearly. Look
IT. IT momant and we shall see how" leaving out
these items OF expenditures for pensions and inter-
est we tend to extravaganza as our revenues In
crease"
! It is true in one instance, during the period Of
Democratic ascendency' aforesaid, that, in 1879,
such expenditures $l9,172,Ols,O7 more than IN
1873, while our revenues were only Sl6063 $40 10
4 more than 1878, which fact may not comfort MI
| Tucker exceedingly But now ABOUT otner years
In 1880 for instance, such expenditures were $ll
O4361 less than in 1873 yet the revenue was soS
In 1889, such expenditures S. IA 10 less
than in 1881. yet the revenue was 40 morei
And, comparing the years OF Repupl1can ascend
ency in the House, in 1882 such expenditures are
less than they were III 1875, while our
revenues are gill, 999 94s. 80 greater In amount
Do these figures bear out the statement tnat we
| tend to extravaganza as our Revenues increase
On the contrary, the facts and figures OF e4penul
lures less pensions and interest on the pubic dept
inset Mr. Tucker and his Democratic campaign
| statement at all points.
But did 1t ever occur 10 Mr.. Tucker while ne was
| trying to prove extravaganza on the Kepuplican
party that he forgot TO mention that, by MS own Hg
interest on the public debt, as compared with the
balance of the annual expenditures ngure up as
| follows: ,..
against $13.571, 745.S5 Of other expenditures,
In 187S-S129 So, 1893 10, against $107, 236, 43307
In I879-$l40, 449 43l 80, against SIPS 498 452la
In I880-$l62 53A TAG 25, against u l5 108 2C853
In 1S81-$132 568 020. 80 against Sl28, IA ooo.s.
| In ls82-t15O, 600, 600, against $120, 00o.
In l883-$165, 0OGO 00 against $l29, 1851, 7934S.
nual expenditures Of the government which the
Southern Democratic Congressman tucker rails
against are expenditures that would never nave
been saddled upon 1t but for the rebellion OF south
ern Democrats, egged on by Northern Democratic
dough-faces OF the Sam Randall sham-economy