The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-09-25
of Finance
REVENUE
 LEGISLATION
(By Hon. F. M. Simmons of NC.
 Chairman Senate Committee on Finance.l

dinary expenses of the Mexican Etua- ton and the broad program of pre- paredness upon which we have decid- ed to enter.
 The Republican party in the coun- try at large is making strenuous. al- most frenzied efforts to make the peo- pie believe that the increase in the appropriations of the past session of Congress were made necessary by, and are the result of reckless extravagance and wastefulness on the part of the Democratic party and the Congress.
 There is no foundation for this charge. Even a superficial analysis will show that it cannot honestly be made. Manifestly it is an effort of the opposition in a Presidential campaign to capitalize the financial demands growing out of an extraordinary situ- alton for political purposes.
 This charge of extravaganza fnvo1v- ed two questions:
 First-Whether this increased ap- propriation' on account of, prepared ness and the Mexican situation. carry ing $393,991, 1000 was an extravagant appropriation for the purposes for which it was made. and that necessar-
 
 the purpose itself was an unworthy one.
 Second-Whether the appropria- tions for the fiscal year 1917 for purely normal purposes is wasteful and extravagant
 Let us first consider these charges as they relate to preparedness appro-i priations. What was and is the atti- tude of the Republican party with re- spect to these appropriations? What was And is the attitude of that party in the country as represented by it's most distinguished leaders, among them the present Republican candi- date for the Presidency and ex-Presi- dent Roosevelt? What is the attitude of that party, upon this question in the present national campaign? Does the Republican party purpose to put itself in the attitude of opposition to the necessary appropriation and expendi- ture for preparedness and for defense 'on the border and in Mexico? Does that party wish the country to Under stand that 1t has taken the back track upon the question of preparedness; that it has taken the back track upon the question of sending the punitive expedition into Mexico that it has taken the back track upon the ques- ton of the mobilization of our forces to meet the situation which was cre- ated in Mexico and in the United States as the result of the Columbus and other raids and as a result of our punitive expedition in Mexico7
 Did the Republican party when the ar 1f rf,,ar a f,, dition to the usual appropriation, as- sail these additional appropriations as extravagant and unnecessary? On the contrary, did not the leaders of that party then insist upon a larger pro- gram involving much larger expen- allure, and was not the inadequacy of the program, and of these appropria- tiors. the gravamen of their conn., p1aint and criticism of this measure7
 What was the attitude of the Re- publican party with respect to the great increases made fin the naval bill in the Senate? It is a matter of com- mon knowledge that upon both these measures leaders insisted upon larger appropriations for these purposes than was made instead of lesser ones. How many Republicans voted against these bills? The record shows that there was no division on the final passage Of the army bill. which means that the vote was unanimous in favor of the bi1L Upon the naval bill there were Fl yeas and 8 nays.
 We are entitled to specification; we have had only general charges and vague hints. Neither the Republican leaders nor their candidate for the Presidency have done more than to make broad and general statements based on the fact that the appropria- tfons for the year 1917. including all this preparedness program. is in ex- cess of that of former years; and, in- stead of specifications. they are throwing out vague hints of pork barrel legislation and like innuendoes. In connection with this Republican chrags of extravagance, invented and promulgated for purely political pur- poses, a great deal has been said about the Republican surpluses and Demo- cratic deficits.
 have taken the trouble to look somewhat into this matter of surplus and deficits. and find a very remark able situation with respect to surplus and deficits depending upon the total annual receipts of the government, by referring to page 235. report of the Secretary of the Treasury. 1915. I find. beginning with MT. Cleve- lands first administration. that during his four years there were two sur p1uses and two. deficits.
 find that there were deficits dur | ing each of the four years under MT. Harrison's administration.
 I find that during MT. C1eve1and's s second term there were two deficits and two surpluses.
 I find that under Mr. Mckinley s administration there was one deficit and three surpluses.
 I find that under MT. Roosevelt's 8 first administration there were two deficits and two surpluses.
 I find that under Mr. Roosevelt's s second term there were two deficits and two surpluses.
 I find that under MT. Taft's admin istration there was one deficit and three surpluses,
 I find that MT. Wilson has had two surpluses and one deficit.
 I further find that during the last i 10 years of the Republican admins | tratien the total deficits exceed the total surpiuses by about $68, 900. l It has been favorite Republican