Democratic Sentinel, Volume 2, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 May 1878 — THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. [ARTICLE]

THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.

Kobeso ’ rjjjg ,d’l Monstrous Corruptions. Committee on Expenditures in Navy Department made their report to Congresß. They say that extravagance and disregard of legal restraints have been recognized at almost every step of their inquiry previous to the beginning of the present administration of the department. At the outset they were staggered by the immense sums apparently owing by the several bureaus, reaching a sum of more than $7,000,000, and this, too, notwithstanding the enormous appropriations made annually from 1869 to 1876, both inclusive, aggregating in amount $149,000,000. There is nothing to compensate this vast outlay save a navy, contemptible even in comparison with those of third and fourth-rate powers. Notwithstanding the plain terms of the law, open purchases have been the chief mode by which the Navy Department has been supplied with materials, not in obedience to expediency, but vastly in exoess of its means. This violation of law, without warrant in precedence or authority, has depleted the treasury to the extent of millions of dollars, and has been the food on which pampered favorites have fattened, while it has prevented the payment of moneys due a meritorious class of creditors to such an extent that many have been involved in bankruptcy and all of them subjected to irreparable loss. The amount of open purchases and bureau orders withiL the last few years aggregates more than $20,000,000. All advantages of an open market have been ignored, fair competition avoided, and both the letter and spirit of the law disregarded. A large share of the indebtedness of the department is due on account of contracts for repair, more properly for rebuilding tbe Puritan, Amphitrite, Terror, Monadnock, and Mian-

tonomah, intended to be double-turreted monitors. The contracts contain clauses providing for the exchange of new for old material. This involves a violation of law on the part of the Secretary of the Navy. The sum which has been paid or remains due on the contracts for the construction of said vessels is $1,316,250. One of the largest contingent liabilities of the Government grows out of orders for timber and iron clads and boilers suspended by the present Secretary of the Navy. The majority of the committee report that the indebtedness which they have mentioned is owing to certain parties in amounts set opposite their respective names: In the Bureau of Engineering, aggregating $1,423,876; in the Bureau of Construction and Repair, $929,534; amounts due for timber in Bureau of Construction and Repair, $416,392; Bureau of Provisions and Clothing, $447,935; making the total $3,217,738. In conclusion, the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

“That the Committee on Appropriations be, and is hereby, instructed to report an appropiiation in the sum of $3,217,738, or so much thereof a; may be necessary to enable the Secretary of tho Navy to pay the claims mentioned to the respective persons; that the Secretary of the Navy be and he is hereby instructed to cancel the contracts dated March 3, 1877, with Phineas Burge.ss for the completion of the Monadnock, $95,000; with Wm. Cramp & Sons, for the completion ®f the Terror, $578,000 ; with Harlin & Hollinsworth, for the completion of the Amphitrite, $578,000 ; with John Roach, for the completion of the Puritan, $1,417,642 ; also contracts with the South Boston Iron Company, dated respectively March 7 and 10, 1877, for the construction of boilers, together amounting to $3,600,263.”

Genuine and Spurious Economists. Now that the nominations for Congress are near at hand, to. be followed by elections this fall, members of both parties in the House of Representatives profess extraordinary zeal for economy and remarkable affection for the interests of the dear people. The effrontery with which the Republican leaders have come to the front to claim that they favored retrenchment while holding the pursestrings would be astounding if any credit attached to their declarations. While De Golyer Garfield was Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations the scandalous plunder of the treasury exceeded all former experience, and it was proven incontestably before two committees of investigation that he was a personal beneficiary of the money voted to the Washington ring, as he was shown to be one of the purchased creatures of the Credit Mobilier villainy by Oakes Ames’ diary and accounts. During the sharp debate on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial bill, in which the Speaker took a prominent part to defend his work in the last Congress, Garfield said: I point with satisfaction to the fact that in 1872, and from that time forward, the expenditures of this Government have'been on a descending scale, and that, too, by the action of Congress, not only before the present Darty came into pywer. but since. The official reports of the treasury, all from Republican hands, give a flat and explicit contradiction to this daring statement, as will be seen from the following figures, which, in a condensed form, present the estimates and the expenditures, exclusive of the interest on the public debt and pensions. We take the year 1872 as the starting point named by Garfield, and follow it down to the advent of the Democratic majority in the House, to include their legislation on the expenditures so far as is returned.

Estimates. Expenditures. 1872.. $125,748,077.13 Repub1ican..5124,668,453.43 1873.. 166,594,921.69 Republican.. 161,129,210.04 1874.. 172,165,026.40 Republican.. 165,080,570 34 1875.. 186,648,976.03 Republican.. 142,073,632.05 1876.. 181,530,103 00 Republican.. 136,600,417.67 1877.. 189,524,344.63 Democrat,... 116,246,211.01 It is thus seen that the “descending scale of expenditures ” elaimed by Garfield from 1872 forward was an increase of $36,500,000 in 1873, and of $40,500,000 in 1874, as compared with that point of departure. The passage of the Sal-ary-grab bill, and the large appropriations to rings, roused the public indignation in 1874, and then Garfield and his associates, in fear of worse to come, reduced their expenditures for 1875, but still kept them above the figures for 1872 to the extent of $18,000,000. And when they found their majority of nearly a hundred swept away by the tidal wave they made a further reduction of $6,000,000, but this was still $12,000,000 beyond the expenditures of 1872. These are the naked facts, and they utterly demolish the false figures given by the Credit Mobilier statesman. When the Democrats took possession

of the House in the last Congress, the appropiiations were already made for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876. They set to work with remarkable vigor, under the lead of Mr. Randall, then Chairman of that committee, who is fairly entitled to most of the credit for the first great blow at extravagant expenditures. At a single dash the retrenchment exceeded $20,000,000, and, as compared with 1872, there was a reduction of $8,000,000. The administration of Grant put every possible obstacle in the way of this measure, and the Senate succeeded, after a long struggle, in striking out $10,500,000 of Mr. Randall’s budget, which experience has demonstrated could have been saved without the least derangement of the public service. One of the ffitfkt valuable reforms introduced by Mr. Randall was the rule requiring that all amendments to appropriation bills proposing to change existmg r ?aws should be in the interest of retrenchment. Previously, under the Republican dispensation, the rule allowed offices to be created, and salaries to be raised, and new legislation involving large grants to be enacted, but forbade any changes on the side of economy ! No wonder De Golyer Garfield complained bitterly of the rule whicn closed the gate against extravagance and shut out amendments for jobs. We quote: Mr. Garfield—l believe it was a fatal mistake to put into the hands of that committee the power to change all the laws i any of the laws, anywhere as they pleased. 1 have always believed that. Mr. Randall (the Speaker)—ln the direction of economy ‘i Mr. Garfield—ln the direction of economy.