Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1904-11-07

gress Of the republican party. Hon.
w II, Andrews. To do otherwise
viii be 10 betray the interest and
welfare OF the party in the hour Of
need.
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS PROVE.
The democratic leaders Of New
Mexico appear To be as thoroughly
at home in discussing financial mat.
tors as was the %proyertial pig In the
parlor.' One Of these--that Is n
democratic leader-has essayed 10 ie-
flute some Of the facts and figures
given 10 the taxpayers by the republI.
can central committee IN q pamphlet
entitled THE Financial Record Of he
Otero Administration After found
ering through every conceivable com
bination Of figures, exclamation
points and scare-heads In large type
this financial genius succeeds la
proving two important things First,
that the Otero administration inner
tied large deficits from Thornton ana,
second, that the taxpayer pays The
taxes.
But what Of the argument. II such
a tumble Of the typefaces cal be sall.
ed an argument? In referring to the
bonded debt there appears q state.
mont, citing the democratic treasnr.
cr's report for 1896. to the effect that
tho total debt was then S959.b)0. An
inspection Of that report quickly indi.
Gates two important flaws IN ,tls
statement, one being tho fact that the
addition was not correctly made. and
] another that a large portion Of the
total debt was ingcnuously tucked
away In fine print on the next pags
AFTER NIL Of these errors are corrected
and the Thornton deficit added. 1t Ii
found that the debt confronting Oterc
and the republicans In 1899 amountcsi
to $1,2a9. 500 m stated by them. Since
that date the debt has been reduced
. AT Il rate something greater than s75.
900 each year, OF a total OF 1896. 06f
In five years. leaving the net debt to
day only sS54,735. a fact which Il
easily susceptible of proof by the Off
.ciaI records.
The democratic writer refers JOY
fully to the small expenditures I'M
der Thornton, but neglects to cal
attention to the fact that even then
Thornton spent on an average $50 .00c
! per, year more than he collected II
appears 10 be one of the principal
: tenets Of the democratic financial
!. doctrine than unpaid bills do not rep
/ resent expenditures, and that when
the cash Ia all gone II is all right &c
pile up deficits for some one else to
pay.
Q The author OF the screed In ques
tion appears to be especially de
lighted with the fact that in 1895 and
1896 Thornton spent a total OF only
$50, $40 10. Hut since he is SO fond
i, Of citing t%rcasurer's reports why mol
refer TO that for 1898 on page s OF
!. which appears the following foot
mote:
"The excess OF the interest pay,
ments In 1893 above the annual i'm
. terest charge represents the payment
OF arrearages OF 1895 and 1885,"
Despite that payment, the republi
[ can Legislature OF 1890 had 10 meet a
deficit In the interest fund, handed
down by the democrats, and amount
ing to. $55.2i3. As Thornton paid
less than $4,000 per year To the edu
eational institutions. none OF the
principal and little of tho Interest
on the public debt IT remains to-day
an Sunsolyea mystery how he could
speAd $685. es.Ts IN four years. but
: our democratic authority ates that
such is the fact.
The 0tero administration. on the
: other hand, has nothing 10 conceal
y nor Is II necessary to resort TO any
! Juggling with the figures. Here are
g some important items for 1908:
! Paid interest and principal on the
/ bonded debt. sll9.26i: asylum. peui
Tertiary. schools and charities. s2s2.
9 AIS; Worlds Fair. militia, courts and
miscellaneous, s75.75i, public sala.
$ ries. s5s.0ss This last item. by The
way. Il the one which the democratic
e pamphleteer tries TO make the public
o believe is responsible for all the ex
penses incurred In running our terri