The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-09-10
a ouEsTIoN or HONESTY.

a QUh0I1UN Uf A0N66I4s
Mr.. Hendricks cries out against the fraud
and corruption Of Republican administrations,
and, following him, all the lesser Democratic
politicians are endeavoring by the cry Of
stop thief to divert public attention from
the crookedness and ways that are dark Of
their own party when it was in power. Let
us examine into their own claims for honesty
and efficiency, taken from the history Of their
own administrations, before deciding as to
which party is entitled to our respect and
confidence in this regard. 3
The total receipts from customs and all
other sources during Lincoln's administration
were 81, 67O, 1850, 1890. The total disburse-
ments Of war, navy, pensions Indians, and
miscellaneous, were "a, 667, Isl, 921. %. The
total loss on each 81, 900 collected was ten
cents, and the total loss on each ST 900 dis.
bursed was $l.41; total, $I.51. This wasduf-
ing state Of rebellion, when money collected
or disbursed was subject to risks and dangers
not common to times Of peace.
In Buchanan's administration, Immediately
preceding Mr.. Lincoln's, the total receipts
from customs and all other sources were
1912 359, 67956 The total disbursements
were, 1928, 49,, 268.S9 The total loss on each
81, 900 collected was So cents, and on each
81, 900 disbursed, it was Sc, 98; total, $3.50.
Thus, we see, under Republican rule, and
in time of war; the loss On each 81, 600 col.
lected and disbursed was only $1.51, against
loss Of $3.50 per each $1,000 collected and
disbursed under Democratic rule, and in time
of peace. If we take into consideration the
greater sum Of money handled during Repub-
lican administrations, and the steady value
thereof if we consider the greater risks Of its
having to pass through relatively larger
number Of hands, and correspondingly multi,
plying its risks the losses reduced to the
risks under Democratic rule; would appear
lower still, while the losses under Democratic
administrations would, under this rule be
greater still. ;sea1 3'ii 100
+. Under jackson the total loss on collections
was 1858 per s., 900, and. on disbursement
$I0.31; total, 1854. Under Van Buren,, the,
total loss on collections was 1901 per 81, 900,
and on disbursements, $21 Is per 81, 900; TO-
tai, $24 16. Under Grant, the total loss on
collections was % cents per 81, 900, and on
disbursements, 81 cents; total, 43 cents IN
der Hayes, the total loss on collections was a
mills per 81, 600, and on disbursements, l mill
per 81, 900; total, 5 mills. And under Arthur,
the loss has been 2 mills per 81, 600 on collecr
tons, and mill per 81, 600 on disbursements;
total, 8 mills.
To recapitulate The maximum loss on each
81, 900 collected and discussed under Demo
cratic rule Tin time of peace) was $24.16 and
the minimum loss on each $1,000 collected
and discussed was $3.50. Under Republican
rule, the maximum loss (and in time Of war;
on each $1,000 collected and disbursea was
$1.51; the minimum loss ON each 81 1000 COL
lected and sdisbursed was millsl
If this be the reform the Democratic party,
would introduce, the first step before seating
that party in power would seem to be to re-
reform the reformers.