National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-09-16
DEMOCRATIC MEASUREMENTS.
Kindly Corrected by Hon. Edward HcPhor.
son-The Treasury Statement Of Losses De.
Tended Against an Ignorant and Malicious

POST secretary DCmOCratiC congressional
Committee, Washington, ID. C.-Sir! At the
democratic ratification meeting in this city on
last Thursday night you undertook to prove
that the latcly-published official statement Of
the treasury department, showing the losses in
the receipts and disbursements of public
moneys, from the beginning Of the govern
ment down TO June 80, 1883, by administra-
tions, Is, in the delicate language employed by
you, "nagrant ialsehood." The statement
thus characterized is certified to be correct by
the acting secretary Of the treasury, and was
transmitted to me Aug. 10 on my written ap-
plication. This was my entire relation to IT,
You speak throughout of this statement of as
certained facts as the "McPherson-Coon state
ment" and toward the close Of your remarks
us printed In the Washington P0si of Friday
from an abstract made apparently by YOURSELF
you say:
"'rh6 acting secretary ofthe treasury having
lent his signature to tho McPhersOn statement
us correct and thus certified to II ilagrant false
by this you evidently meant to convey the
impression that the statement is cOncocted
and fraudulent one, made by unauthorized
persons through the procurement of this com
mttoO, and then given character by nn I'M
proper Ccrtilcaton made By the acting sccrc-
tury of the treasury. This insinuatiOn is
wholly untrue and the making II belittlGs you,
as far rs that may be possible. Asto the state
ment itself, IL is not new, either in FORM sub,
stance, or detail IL was originally prepared
under resolution of the senate In 1876, has
been brought down to date quadrcnnially
since, and been widely circulated in various
publications II Is to the political public one
of the most familiar facts OF thcpcriod, though
! am willing to CUuCcde that the severe shock
| It gave you may he due to the fact that you
had never seen one before; for Its cold dcmOn-
strntion of democratic maadministration Is
we'll calculated to chill an unprcpared and
pOorly.intOrmed democratic partisan suddenly
compelled to confront It,.
This statement differs from that of 1850, only
| In its bringing down the actual accounts for
four years later uud In It's being II transCriptof
| the treasury books touching those points, rs
| they stood corrected on June 20, 1885. under
stand why you dOuOt enjoy these clear, simple,
conclusive tucts and why they rouse your par
| tlsan ranCor. Nevertheless you will be as UNI
able to disturb these definite truths as you are
| to change your own identity
| As to this committee, feel privileged to say
that 1t docs not propose to ask from any one,
or to print, or in any way use anything to which
| the words fraudulent and ialse' can he ap.
| Piled. Nor, let me add does II propose To
| forge" anything, with q view to affect the
| pending political struggle. ] hope that the
skirts of your brethren ot the democratic COM
mittees of 1851 Will be found ut the close OF this
campaign cleaner in this respect than were
the skirts OF the democratic committees of 1850.
| And yet, from indications, doubt whether
the spirit which loadsto such crimes Is not now
| rampant enough TO produce more of them.
| So much for what Is described by your friends
as "the latest republican campaign ialsehood:"
| Now, for what they yaunt us your mastery
| reply to II.
You denied that the ascertained losses under
| the Arthur administration from its beginning
| to June %, 1885 Is S536l.U9 as shown by the
| treasury statement, You asserted that 1t is
| 81, ,5jO, ,SJ02 ~ and you made that up by taking
the amount OF the suits brought by the solicitor
of the treasury the fiscal years OF lSsl- 81 S3
less the amounts collected on those suits, In
| this you committed the prime mistake of
| holding that the solicitors suits in II year are
| the amount of the deialcatiOns for that year.
| The solicitor does not report deiulcutions only
suits; and his suits are generally upon defaults
| which have occurred in previous years for the
| obvious reason that time is given for the cor
rcCtion of errors before making up the ac-
counts upon the transcript of which the So
| liCitOr's suits are based. Therefore, when you
| stated that the amounts of the suits in those
| fiscal years are the amounts Of the deiaCatiOns
! in them, you simply misstated the fact. am
willing to admit that you misstated it gnor
untly. Your experience us lawyer II you
| have had any, ought to have suggested to you
the probability OF this explanation, even if
your rawness in public life hud failed to suggest
| the fitness OF mOdcsty in assailing the acts and
character of such well-known and honorable
officials Us the acting secretary OF the treasury.
You made the SILL further mistake of claim
| ing that the amounts sued for are the amounts
actually owed. Tho iuCt is that the suits are
| us u rule much i'll excess OF the amounts
| actually owed, because the auditing officers
|
| Is technically and literally perfect in his
vouchers and 1t therefore constantly happens
| that in those suits enormous deductions follow
| from pertecting informal vouchers ana irOm
proofs of proper payments There is an Illus
! iratiOn Of this in your list of alleged defalca-
tiOns OF 1881. You stated II at siso, ,iII07. This
includges the suit of Bridgman, an Indian
| agent, Tor Sl0i 900, being the sum reported by
the accounting officer. Since the bringing of
that suit informal vouchers have been per-
1ected, and thnt large balance has been reduced
TO $4,000, which may be still further reduced
| by other proper allowances, If not be entirely
| WiDed out. SO, in your summing up of the
solicitors suits under the ''Lincoln admins
trutlOn," you included the default Of James B.
| StCudman for sGli 7ji.95, which amount was
subsequently reduced by the accounting oili-
GERS, ON proper proofs of payment, to $500 lOi.
These illustrations sufficiently show how
thoroughly misleading your data are, and how
impossible IL is and will be for you or any
other person 10 overthrow the actual state
ments of accounts adjusted by producing
| against them II multitude OF blontod state
mCuts of accounts in controversy. am Will
ing to admit that you committed this, like
your other tOllies, rather more III ignorance
than in malice and that this apparent lack OF
cundOr Is really lack of knowledge. lnac-
curaCy runs through every feature OF your
speech rs reported by yourself For instance
in making up your last statement of "losses'
the first item is of the total loss under elght
years OF Lincoln's administration" whereas
every school boy knows that Mr.. Lincoln s
term was but one month and II hall over four
years, and that he was succeeded by Andrew
Johnson, who you do not name as having mad
an administration. You also charge the Stead
man dcialcation to Mr.. Lincoln, though Stead
man was an HppOintee of Andrew johnson,
and the dclalcGtion occurred about three years
after Mr., Lncoln's death.
In the same spirit, and by the same methods,
you undertake TO show that the 'losses' since
aud including lincolns time have been sij,-
52762j27. This total is preposterously false,
aud necessarily so, because the elements COM
1 r.lsi mo- "a
suits are not proof Of the amounts actually
owed by those with whom the government
deals any more than the amounts claimed IN
| suits IN civil life are proofs of the actual III
debtedness of defendants. That can be known
only alter both sides are heard, when the case
must be decided according to the evidence.
Beside, you treat every dollar rs lost to the
treasury which has been embezzled by dis
bursting officers in disregard of the security
afforded the government in the bonds OF these
officers
You will, therefore, allow me TO say that
your statement as u whole is slngularly un'
scrupulOus. The matter under discus
sion by you was the state of the public ac,
counts up to June 80, 1888, aud the accuracy oi
the treasury report that up to that time the
ascertalned loss for thctwo years ofthe Arthur
administration was aj,36i.OD. Your speech
made two contradictory statements in reply
In the beginning you claimed that ACTUAL loss
Is Slj5O sOO,27, "iustead OF s5,3Gl.O9" In the
latter part Of your speech, after you mad
warmed TO the work set before YOU the
amount was again itemized and swelled u
sG,OOi, s002I and you stated these last also Ia
DO the true figures, "iustcad OF S5,3Cl.00, as
stated by Secretary Mcl'herson and certified
as correct by Acting Secretary of the Treasury
Coon" Both your statements cannot be true
Yet you made them both and contrasted them
both with the same sum, g., 5,38i.O9. one OF
other is false. Which Is III Both are. How
did you mako up the figures, 5000, 5000, as
again quoting you, the whole amount stolen
under Arthur" II II you included
the gross amount Of the suits of the solicitor OF
tho treasury heretofore disposed of; the
amount described as "stolen by the star
rOutcrs," all of which occurred, us everybody
knows, under the Hayes administrations "thl
steal of BuTnside-s ssl 0O'-whiCh you your
self placed in 1854, and after the period under
discussion; THE deiHlGatiOn in the state de-
partment--2l6,O 900 which you placed in 1884,
and after the date under discussion; "the
| mnYY lunNrLmnml IrnulR. meliNAl burean