West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1884-09-26
Republican laundering OF the Treasury.

scathing indictment brought hy Carl
Schur against the Republican party cN-
Governor llawlcNof Connecticut. brings
out the Woll-won comparison hctNccn
cCVcral Admin, strations rs TO cost of col
Letting tho revenue, and loss in rccciv-
ing and di>bUrSiug the same. Tho lo,,c,
on receipts ne points out, under Ia,lur.
500 per SLOlo; under Pierce. ~.22;
undcr Buchanan, S3.l6; under Lincoln,
SHY; under Grant, Sl21; under
HaNcs, two cents per $1,000. and
under Arthur during the first two
years of his Administration, six mills
per $1,000. AS to the disbulsc.
mcuts the average loss. lac saws. under
all Administrations prior to 1861, was
SOL per $1,000. The average since
has been thirty-uinc cents per II 600.
and this, he thinks, shows chow the
Republican party has pluudcrcd the
/ Treasury meaning, oi course, i'm his
sarcastic way, that these figures arc a
conclusive answer TO the charge that the
Republican party has pundcrcd the
Treasury.
There are some facts In relation to
GoNcrnmcnt bookkeeping and yollcc-
tion ot revenues which make these hU-
urcs misleading as evidence of the com
paratiVC economy i'm conducting the
Government before and since the war.
But coucodinw for tho sake OF aruumcnt
that they show accurately the AVERAGE
loss during the two periods compared il
Is worth while TO examine thcm to see
what else they Show.
DO they show, for instance. that the
Democratic Administration, before the
war were dishonest aud incapablc
because the loss undo them was
greater than under the Republican Ad-
miniSuations since that time? II thcy
do they also show that the Lincoln
Administrat on and the Grant Admins
tration were dishonest and incapable;
for the contrast i'm their losses i'm col
lccting and disbursing the revenue and
the losses incurred under Hayes and
Arthur is moro violent than the con
trast between the averages of Demo.
cratic and Republican administration.
Governor Hawley aud his party are
welcome To all the comfort they can find
i'm the figures viewed i'm that aspect.
More important still, do the figures
show, or tend To- show. that the later
Republican Administrations have hon
cstly conducted the Government and
that the Republican party has not
"plundcrcd the 'lrcasury?' The answer
To- this must be that the figures Mother
show nor tend TO show anything of the
kind.
II is Of common uotoricty that during
the two las' Administrations, with their
exceeding low ratio of loss per 900, as
shown by tho lIawlcy figures, the Treas
ury has been more crcllv plundcrcd
than at any period of the comtry's his
tory. We do not speak now of e+trav-
aGanCe in appropriation and o%pondi-
ian. Ia f,..,F f.. 10
dcrlng of the Treasury which makes no
show in the Ilawlcy nturcs. We refer
to the open and outrageous steals of
which the Star Route robhcrio5 we're
llagrant but not lonely examples
With the general history of these rob
berries the public has long since become
acquainted. Routes let hy contract for
small amounts were subsequently, and
traudulcntly "cxpcditcd, as IL was
called, and the amount paid from the
Treasury enormously increased, tho
profit being divided between the con
tractors, Republican officials and man
ayers of the Republican campa On. I'm
the Dorsey Brady combination there
wcrc according 20 the testimony taken
before the investigating committee one
hundred and thirty-luur cases Of eek
pcditcd' routes A. TO nineteen Of
thee the testimony was exceedingly
full and explicit II showed that upon
contracts originally let under compcU-
tiOn TO the amount Of ~Il. .135, there
was net increase, without any compo-
ttlOp, OF ~i4S,G1O. Upon these nine
teen contract alone the Government
was robbed of nearly half q million;
and the aggregate plundcr i'm the entire
one hundred and thirty four cases can
af Itut f.I1