Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-09-12
MOODY REPLIES.
Attorney General Sharply Criticizes
Parker on Expenditures.

General William II. Moody at a meet
ing here, last night, spoke in part as
follows:
AT a meeting with the Democratic
editors at Esopus, Thursday, Sept j,
the Democratic candidate for the Pres
idency delivered an address. In it he
made certain statements of fact. This
of itself is notable occurrence. He
said that during the last fiscal year the
government expenditures We're larger
thtn in any year of peace in the history
of the government.
That fact had not altogether escaped
public attention. 1t is perfectly evident
to any one who cares to investigate
public affairs and has already been said
several thousand times.
This is exactly as it should be. In n
great. growing and prosperous country
the normal peace expenditures should
increase from year to year. The eX-
penditurcs in the last fiscal year ought
to have been larger than in any year
of peace in our whole history.
The question is not how much they
We're, but whether the expenditures
were wisely and economically made,
and until there is some specific criticism
of some. part of the expenditures we
have right to assume that they We're
wisely and economically made.
1--WE did eXpend in the last fiscal year
$j4S. 600 900. Let those who criticise these
expenditures point out what part of
them ought not to have been made.
do TO nr>a Iar, ~ I,
the expenditures of 20 years ago. We
have grown in 90 years. We may as
we'll go back 100 years and compare
them with the expenditures when an
nually they amounted to only 100000 900
Or s12,000.000 OF the expenditures for
the last fiscal year $22,OO0,00O We're for
the Improvement Of rivers and harbors.
$li2 100000 for pensions, s10000,G00 for
the construction of public buildings
throughout the country, and $40,000,000
for new ships for the navy.
Generous provision was also made
for the marine hospital service, the life
saving service. the army and navy. the
construction of Notifications along our
seacoasts. and for the maintenance of
the department of commerce with its
bureau OF labor.
(Which one of these expenditures
ought to have been omitted or dimin-
ished? In that year we provided
ahundantly for all branches of the pub
lie service and made the expenditures
which are fitting for a great govern
mnnt of a great nation in time of pros
perity.
Il have said that the normal charac-
teristiC of expenditures in Il growing
country is increase. That is especially
true in view of the tendency of gov
eminent to extend the scope Of its ac-
tivity and to do many things which a
century ago were considered suitable to
be left only for private enterprise.
1T is difficult to get with exactnoss
the expenditures of any administration
because the fiscal year begins on July
l. and the political year begins on
March 4. but I think it can be safely
said that each Of the two administra-
tionS Of President Cleveland showed an
increase of expenditures over the Re-
publican administration which i'm
mndiately preceded it.
I'm view Of this normal increase of
the expenditures of Mr.. Cleveland's
first administration, which began %
years ago. with the expenditures of the
administration which is Just about to
close. and this is what Judge Parker
has DONE
we are not apologizing for expendi-
lures. We 10 not wish to conceal them
We wish that the people should under
stand them and not by any sophistry
be made to misunderstood them.
Judge Parker in his speech also said
that in the fiscal year lust closed tbera
WAS deficit of s42,0OO.0OO To saw this
without more was not worthy of his
nigh character and intelligence. There
We're. if it true, $40 1000 900 more exnend-
ed than We're received in the last fiscal
year, but the actual annual eynendi-
lures of the government in that wear
as compared with the actual revenue
showed n surplus of more than SIX ono
900. and this apparent deficit was made
up. as YOU know, and as the country
knows, by a loan of 81 900 900 to the ST
Louis exposition. which will be. renaid.
and the payment of $4,000. 900 toward
the construction of the Panama canal.
Was it candid to make the state-
ment which was made without the ex-
PLANTATION which properly ACCOMPANIES
1t? The payment for the Panama canal
1t to be no more considered as mart
or the annual expenditures of the qov-
eminent than the purchase of an ad-
dltion to mans firm or the erection
OF an addition to his dwelling. or any
other permanent investment wou,d no
counted as part of the annual ax.
pendltures of an individual.
~ 10 De natter of reproach
:" d i'epuolican administration that It
ha2 oOn6unta1 ~