National Republican., 1886-08-25

IOtHl. ....,."...,'s..,,.,.,....... S3f3b4b,Io2
In the last four years the expenditures
for public buildings have been on very
liberal scale, and II added to the sum above
stated would doubtless place the aggregate
for this purpose in the nelghborhood OF
Sl10000,000.
The state Of New York is charged with
the largest amount expended for public
buildings, the total being $l4,3i7, ,157, of
which the court house and postofllce at
New York city received $9,3fl,691 The
other states that received over 81 900, 900
are. California, 2,110,5l3; Connecticut,
81 ,014, ,025; Illinois, $7,463,937; Louisiana,
$4,S72,360; Maine, $2,0Si ,129; Maryland,
1885,, ,603; Massachusetts,, 1880, ,O2i Mis-.
souri,, So, l97,804; Ohio, s., 5,706, ,969; Pcnu-
sylvania, 81, 4S6, ,9l3; South Carolina, 1885,
lures for public buildings In the District Of
Columbia are not included in the treasury
statement.
New York also obtained the largest sums
for river and harbor improvements, the ag-
gregatc being S9,530,97 Other states re-
ceiving upwards OF $l,000,000, under this
head, are California, 81 ,493, 400; Counecti-
gia, $l,3G4,06 Illinois, $2,352,3 ,305; Maine,
81 ,404 $50; Maryland, 81, 1856, 40; Massachu-
setts, $292S, $50; Michigan, $7,s2s,356;
North Carolina, $2,26l, ,203; Ohio. $2,S57,-
03l; Pennsylvania, $l,067, 10l; Texas, 81
| 1G6, 1884, Virginia, 81 ,6S3, 1876; West Virginia,
| 81 1897, ,5ss; Wisconsin, $i,6l6,49
In the ebove are not included the amounts
expended In improving the larger rivers
bordering upon or passing through two or
more states. Thus, for the Mississippi river
proper there was expended $l9, ,53G, ,09G, ana
for the Mississippi and its principal trlbu-
tarles, the Missouri, Ohio, and Arkansas,
| S3,437, ,002; for the Missouri river proper,
| $l,3O0,500; Delaware, $963,0li; Arkansas,
| S259,571; Coosa river, in Alabama and
Georgia, S270, 600; Chattahoochie and Flint,
$l33,000; Columbia, $4,000; Cumberland,
the Ohio and Louisville canal, Sl,290,S2i
Wabash, S9S0,500; Tennessee, 50, 23l ,457;
| Warrior and Tombigbee, $4,000
| For the construction of the old Cumber
land road, which was begun in 1906, and
extended from Cumberland, Nd, to west
ern Illinois, the sum Of $6,759,2 ,257 was ex.
| pended. The last appropriation made for
this work was by an act of March 3, 1887.
The experience of the government with
canals cost the treasury s., ,735, 1874, Of which
there was expended for the Chesapeake and
Ohio $999,000; Chesapeake and Delaware
$3.50, 1000; Louisville and Portland, $233, 800
] Milwaukee and Rock River, $225 ,277; Dis
nal Swamp, S200, 900; and for surveys and
estimates, 1924, l03 exclusive Of the survey OF
the Darien Isthmus, which cost $67, $40, and
that of Tehuantepec and Nicaragua, which
cost $4,000.
An examination of the expenditures fol
forts and arsenals shows that Fort Morgan
Mobile bay, cost 81, ,342, PAS; fort at For
Point, San Francisco bay, $2,517,5 800; Fort
Alcatraz, 81, 500, 800; Fort Delaware, 5000,
$50; Fort Jefferson, Florida, $4,000, ,99G
Fort Taylor, Key West, $2,4t2,3li; Fort
Pulaski, $1,02s, ,795; Rock Island arsenal
$780, ,459; Fort jackson, below New Or
leans, 81, ,126, ,S76 Fort Saint Philip, $685.
Fort Pike, $GG0,127; Fort Knox, Maine
S92s,500; Fort Preble, S57S,970; Fort Car
roll, $1,125,7T9; Fort Warren, $l,672, ,2T6
Springfield arsenal, Mass, 50, ,5l1, 300; Sand.
Hook, 81, ,124, ,2S1; Fort Hamilton, $l.205,
900; battery at Willet's Point, Sl,33l, 800
Fort Schuyler, 81 ,497, 800; Fort Tompkins
S1,470, 900; Fort Adams, II. l., Sl,977SS
Fort Monroe, 81, 2,370,00 Fort Wool, on tn
Rpraps, S2,243,3 81; Fort Sumter, $943,00
Fort Moultrie, $07S, ,745; defenses at mout
of Columbia river, $G,4l7,GSS.
There was expended during the rebellio
for the defenses Of Washington, 81, ,090, ,25I