Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1886-09-16
Opening the Books"

Inc DomOcrdIlc N aGlOnal COmmltle6
has issued a campaign document under
the caption, Opening the Books" which
assumes to be revelation of Republican
crookedness in federal Office. 1t is COM
piled from the treasury books, contain
ing the lists of all defalcations, disputed
accounts, and amounts due to individ>
uals from the government, the record
covering the period from 1889 to 1884.
The treasury records show, what this
campaign book does not, that the aggre-
gate of defalcatious and disputed ac>
counts from 1889 to 1884 is about $780,
100000, over One-half of which belongs
to the period before 1861, when the Re
publicans came into power. The aggre
gate of these defaleations and disputed
accounts from 1861 to 1884 is S12. .S93. .476.
Just what proportion of this amount is
really defalcations, and what disputed
accounts. it is impossible to ascertain,
but fair presumption is that One>half
of it represents sums that were in no
sense stolen from the government. Dur
ing the confusion of the great civil war
when million men were in the field, it
was inevitable that there should be many
disputes between the government and
its quartermasters, s,paymasters, and other
officials, owing to the loss of account
books, the death of officers, and other
causes. More than one-half of the S12,-
893, ,476 above referred to, or S7,2009S4.
is ehargeable to Lincoln's term, but so
enormous were the amounts of money
handled during that time that the aver
age of "losses" was only 76 cents on each
$1,000 handled. including receipts and
disbursements. The total receipts and
disbursements of the government from
1889 to 1851 aggregated S4,S00,000,000 in
round numbers. Of this amount the
treasury records, from which the Demo-
cratic campaign book is compiled, show
that little over $13,OOO,OOO was stolen
or lost. The total receipts and disburse-
ments of the government from 1851 to
1880, the latest figures at our command
at the time of writing this. amounted to
S31,59S, 100000, or nearly seven times
the amount handled by federal officials
during the whole period of the govern>
ment's history prior to 1861 Thirteen
millions stolen or lost by Democrats in
handling $4,SOO, 100000, and less than
$13,OOO0OO stolen or lost by Republicans
in handling $31, ,59S,OOO,000! But the
Democratic campaign book says nothing
about that. 1t confines itself exclu siVe>
ly to the $12, 1893, 476 alleged to have been
stolen, not one-half of which was stolen,
while the Republicans were in power.
Assuming for the sake of argument that
the whole $12, ,S93,476 was stolen or lost
while the Republicans were in power,
how does it compare with the Democrat
40 cents on each $1,000 received and
disbursedl On the other hand, the loss
under Democratic administrations was
So so on each $1,000 handled! 1t should
also be borne in mind that Johnson's ad-
ministration was essentially Democratic.
The losses during his term amounted to
S4,619,599 Deducting this from the
S12, ,S93, 3,476, and the losses under Repub>
lican administrations would appear to
be less than 30 cents on each $1,000.
How trifling this appears when compared
with the following losses on each $1,000
under Democratic and other administra-
tions: Washington, $2.22; Adams, $3.50;
jefferson, S2.75; Madison, $4.l6; Mons
roe, SS.5S; Adams, S4 80; Jackson. S7.52;
Van Buren,, Sill; HarrisonTyler.
S6.40; Polk, S4.OS; Taylor-Fillmore.
S419; Pierce, $3 SO; Buchanan, So 81.
Then take the losses on each 81 900 un>
der Republican administrations, individ
ually: Lincoln, 76 cents; Grant, "a cents !
HAYES, less than one cent. We have not |
the exact figures at hand for the Garfield |
Arthur term. but they are low enough |
to suit the most exactiug. The Demo-
cratic campaign book is lying effort to |
make it appear that the records show a |
greater degree of dishonesty on the part |
of Republican officials than was found |
among Democrats in like positions; but
the whole record. perverted and falsiiied
for Democratic purposes BY the Demo-
cratic National Committee. proves con-
clusively that the Republican party has
handled the public funds with greater
honesty and efficiency than were ever
by any other party or by any
other Observation-Disclosures Leader. !