Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 June 1886 — FIGURES WON’T LIE, [ARTICLE]

FIGURES WON’T LIE,

But Republican Speakers and Newspapers Will, as Is Shown bj What Follows. •Congressman Townshend, of Illinois, Exposes the Munchausenisms of McComas, of Maryland. During the discussion in the lower house •of Congress of the legislative, executive and judicial appropriation bill Mr. McComas, of Maryland, took occasion to deal in- what he termed Democratic extravagance. In doing this Mr. Me Comas, either ignorantly or purposely, misrepresented the facts. The most extraordinary misrepresentation was the statement that the aggregate appropriations which have already passed the House for 1887 were $368,646,311.87. Now let us look at the facts and the figures as shown by the records. The following appropriation bills have passed the House this session, as compared with those of the last session: This Last session. session. Agricultural appropriation bill 8523,715.03 8588,700.00 Army bill 23,968,928.40 24,014,052.50 ■Consular and diplomatic 1,299,165.00 1,242,925.00 District of Columbia. 3,611,662.92 3,622 683.20 Indian bill 5,493,062.84 5,762,512.70 Military Academy... 297,805.00 310,022.64 Pension bill 75,754,200.00 60,000,000.00 Postoffice bill 54,326,519.00 53,700,990.00 Rivers and harbors.. 15,142,200.00 Urgency deficiency. bill 634,450.65 Special deficiency bill 6,233,000.00 This making in all $187,284,680.94, instead of $368,646,311.87, as stated by Mr. McComas. Congressman Townshend, of Illinois.took the fioor of the House, and in an off-hand speech exposed the imaginary character of the Maryland Ananias’ statistics. We print below the main portions of his able speech: I did not intend to make any remarks whatever upon this bill except such as I might deem proper under the consideration of its various sections within the limit of the five-minute debate under the rule, until I had heard some remarks which fell from the lips of my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. McComas) on yesterday and this morning. Since these remarks have been delivered I have betn preparing some notes for observations in reply to points they made in regard to the bill. In the first place I will take notice of some of the remarks of my friend from Maryland (Mr. McComasj. He has very ably and ingeniously criticised the estimates of the departments and the work -of this House during this session regarding appropriations, but in a mauner which in my judgment is likely to mislead. He has endeavored to induce this House and the country to believe that the Democratic members of this House have forgotten the watch-word which has ever been a favorite one with the Democratic party since itß foundation by Jefferson—of adherence to the principles of economy. I believe, sir, that if the gentleman himself would sit down and carefully study the figures showing the appropriations since the first time the Democratic party regained control of this branch of C ngress since the war began, he will discover that the Democratic majority, whenever it appeared in this House, has been faithful to the injunctions ■of the fathers of the party, and the pledges of its representatives to the people when seeking election. The figures that have been prepared for me by the Clerk of the Committee on Appropriations demonstrate clearly that since wo came into power in the Forty-lourth Congress there has been a steady and successful effort on the part of the Democratic majority in this House to reduce the expenditures of this Govon: ment. They were wonderfully successful in the For-ty-fourth Congress when they had to combat a Republican Senate and a Republican President The results of their labors, notwithstanding the opposition of Republican members, demonstrated that the current expenditures of this Government could be safely reduced at least 830,000,000 without in any degree whatever crippling the efficiency of the public service. And if the Democratic party in the Forty-fourth Congress are entitled to gratitude for nothing else, they are at least entitled to receive the thanks of the tax-payers of this country for relieving them in the first year of their power here from the burden of $30,000,000 of unnecessary expenditures imposeed upon them by the extravagance of the Republican party, which had held unlimited control of both branches of ■Congress for so many years. Now, Mr. Chairman, no matter how deceptive rhetoric may be, it has been said truthfully, "“Figures will not lie.” I will present the official figures presented by the Treasury Department, and the proceedings of Congress.' I hold in my hand a table showing the appropriations from 1873 down to and including the current fiscal year, less amount for pensions : Forty-Becond Congress, Republican—--1873 $144,820,533.73 1874 167,439,297.38 Forty-third Congress, Republican—--1175 153,705.002.16 1876 149,160,833.90 Forty-fourth Congress, Democratic—--1877 125,020,139.04 1878 115,859,149.23 Forty-fifth Congress, Democratic—--1879 141.815.775.68 1880 136,636,937,17 Forty-sixth Congress, Democratic—--1881 147,747,560.27 1882 150,075,750.57 Forty-seventh Congress, Republican--1833 181,501,602.29 1884 145,418,647.63 Forty-eighth Congress, Democratic—--1885 154.900,588.09 1886 1£9,595,283.18 This table shows that in the Forty-second, a Republican Congress, the appropriations for the first session were nearly one hundred and fortyfive millions, and the second session nearly one hundred and sixty-seven and a half millions. In the forty-third Congress, a Republican Congress, the appropriations for the ordinary expenses of. the Government had reached in the first session nearly one hundred and fifty-four millions; in the second session they excoded •one hundred and forty-nine millions. In the next Congress, the Forty-fourth, a Democratic majority appeared here for the first time since the war. Tne appropriations at the first session Bhrank to about $125,000,000, and in the second session they shrank $10,000,000 more, to less than $116,000,000. lam giving the figures in round numbers, omitting the odd thousands. In the Forty-fifth Congress we again controlled the House. The appropriations were less than $142,000,000 in the first session, and in the second session they were about $136,50),000. In the Forty-sixth Congress, with a Democratic House, they were less than $148.( 0 ),000 in the first session, and about $150,000, Ojo in the second session. That was the Fortv-sixth Congress which immediately preceded'the control ■of this House by the Republican party in the next Congress. In the Forty-aaventh Congress—when the Republicans regained this House—see how the figures sprang up under Republican control of both branches of Congress, with a Republican President in the White House to sign the bills. The appropriation of the first session of that Congress ran up from $147,000,000 under a Democratic control to over one hundred and eightyone and a half millions ; and in the second session, the short session, they were about one hundred and forty-five and a half millions. As they had lost power in the House they purposely reduced the expenditures below what they knew were the growing needs of the service, in order to make a sham show of economy and create deficiencies for the Democratic House to provide. In the Forty-eighth Congress the figures show the appropriations were less than one hundred and seventy-five millions iff the first session, and one hundred and fifty-nine and a half millions in the second. In the last Congress there were extraordinary appropriations which do not belong to the orappropriaiions of the Government, such as the appropriations for the New Orleans Exhibition,and the appropriations for an increased number of public buildings ordered by Congress,

and for other than the ordinary expenditures of the Government. But I have a much more interesting table than the one I have exhibited for the careful consideration of my friends on the other side. I call attention to a very interesting table which the Clerk of the Committee on Appropriations has prepared for me within the last few hours. It is a table showing the amount of estimates made since 1877 by the departments, except the year 1878, of which he did not have time to procure the verified official data. It also contaiuß the amounts of the appropriations as the bills passed this House during that period, and shows also the appropaiations as they were finally enacted into law. The object of this table. I will frankly state, is to show what were the estimates made by the Republican officials and sent to Congress of what they deemed it necessary and should bo appropriated to carry on the Government during that period of nine years. I particularly desire to show by this table that the House, where Democrats, except in one Congress, held control during that period, reduced the amounts of appropriation hundreds of millious below the estimates and sent the bills to the Senate with the amounts so reduced. I wish to show further by tnis table that the Republican Senate was a most extravagant body, and that it largely increased the appropriations above the reduction of the House. When the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. McComas) railed at the Democratic party for haring failed to secure large reductions during its power here, he forgot the fact that there was another body which has equal power with this House over appropriations, and controlled by his pirty during that period, which in a large degree defeated our efforts for economy and steadily and largely, unnecessarily, extravagantly increased the appropriation as authorized by the House. Look at this table, showing aggregate amount of the annual estimates submitted to Congress and the aggregate amount of the annual appropriation bills as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate for the fiscal years 1877 aud 1879 to 1886, inclusive : Amount oflAmonut of Amount of es- bills as pass- bi Is as pss--Yeab. timates. ed by the ed by the House. | Senate. 1877 *203,099,025.48 *138,752,313.12 *158,200,598.33 1878 1879 176,226.358.31 147,687,739.94 161,852,269.11 1890 204,902,290.58 188,381,875.01 197.828,373.38 1881... . 193 039,012.17 184.840,549.12 189,672.961.23 18.82 219,611,701.01 193,708,587.41 117,417,283.20 18.83 309,495,451.15 289,288.557.84 297,198,13.1.86 1884 306,: 80,163.16 *227,582,931.41 *231,821,264.77 1885 235,098,041.12 184,961,951.69 205,101.508.51 1888 266,403,181.42 *213,262,447-55 *223,357,251.00 2,113 605,317.95 1,768,166,986.31 1,882,535,243.05 1,768,466,986.32 1,768,406,986 32 Reduction by House under estim’ts *345,138.331.03 Incre’n’d by Senate over House $114,068,257.73 *Dces not include river and harbor bill which failed to pass. Note.—ln the estimates as stated above are included supi>lemental estimates transmitted to Congress after the regular books of estimates ivere submitted to Congress. Now, what are the total figures? This table shows that the estimates made by the departments during that period of nine years amounted to $1,708,466,986. What did the House do with the estimates during that period? This table shows that those estimates were reduced $345,138,331. You see if the bills had become law as they left this House there would havo been a saving to the Treasury of over $345,000,000. But what did the Senate do with them? This tablo shows that the Senate increased the api ropriations during that period $114,068,257.73. In other words, the Senate increased the appropriations of the economical Democratic party in the House over $114,(0 ) 000. Thase figures furnish the answer to the inquiry made so frequently in this debate upon the other side why those of us ou this side have not succeeded in reducing the expanditures more than has been done. itismaiuly because your Republican Senate have in every instance where we have sent them general appropriation bills largely increased the amount of the appropriations, and thereby in many instances defeated our efforts at economy. Now, I wish to speak for a few moments of the present administration of some of the bureaus of the departments. Why gentlemen on the other side are so anxious to criticise the administration of the Commissioner of Pensions is to many a mystery. There are many members of thiH House who wonder rvhy it is that whenever a pension appropriation bill or an ordinary appropriation bill relating to the Pension Office is under discussion an assault is mads, if there is the slightest excuse for it, upon the administration of the Pension Office by Commissioner Black. Many are mystified with this ;I am not. I fully understand the motive which prompts gentlemen on the other side to make these assaults. Some inquire, “Why is it so?” A gallant soldier has hsen elevated to the head of the Pension Office—as gallant a soldier as ever faced a foe upon the battlefield ; ho has demonstrated his loyalty and love for his flag by the wounds which to-day he carries, wounds which have never yet healed, although inflicted over twenty years ago; a soldier as faithful as any who ever fought under the flag, one who has been horribly mangled in both arms, one still painfully suffering from these wounds Why are these assaults made upon him? I know well the motive. Gentlemen who make these assaults feel deeply grieved because Mr. Cleveland did uot appoint as Commissioner of Pensions some one who had served in the Confederate army, in order that they might go before the people this fall and insist that thoir prophecies in a measure have been verified. These gentlemen know well that the stump orators of the Republican party, and doubtless some of these gentlemen themselvt s, have deluded and misled many a soldier from his allegiance to the Democratic party by asserting that if a Democratic President should be elected the Confederates would capture the capital, that the Union soldiers would he in danger of losing their pensions, that the Confederate debt would be paid, aud the negro would be enslaved. Such demagogy, based on statements which those who make them know in their hearts to be false, has prevented the Democratic party in the North from carrying the elections in many Congressional districts. Now, because Mr. Cleveland, as soon as he cauie into power, appointed as Commissioner of Pensions a crippled Union soldier, a soldier beloved for his gallantry by all Union soldiers, who love gallant conduct whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican, these gentlemen are sadly disappointed in their selfish hopes, are angered, and are unable to avoid manifesting their disappointment and anger by assaults on General Black. By this appointment the President has deprived them of campaign arguments which they no doubt hoped would influence the votes of soldiers at the coming election. Now, I make this assertion—and it is proved by the records of the office—that since General Black came in as Commissioner of Pensions the number of cases favorably acted on has largely increased over any previous administration of the Pension Office. Yesterday afternoon when 1 asserted in this House that I had been informed that not one single Democrat was found among the special examiners when General Black came into power, several gentlemen questioned that statement ; several denied it—who no doubt honestly believed they knew the facts ; others again, who care nothing for the facts, but recklessly deny anything that militates against the interests of their party. I asserted it then; I reassert it now. I care not who questions it. I have an official statement of the fact. When General Black went into office March 17, 1885, he fcuud one hundred and forty-eight men holding positions by express appointments as special examiners. There was not one single Democrat among the number. Those who administered that office did not want Democrats ; they no doubt were Republicans who would use their official power to influence voters at the polls. Ido not charge that tuis in every instance was the motive of appointment of these special examiners, but judging by the actions of men who came into my district and others in Illinois who did thus exort thoir influence—and it was a powerful one with the poor applicant for a pension—it would seem that such a purpose at times influenced their appointment. Look at this statement. Of one hundred and lorty-eight regular special examiners General Black found in offico not a single one of them was a Democrat. In addition to these special examiners there were two hundred and twenty-nine clerks detailed in this special examining service, making nearly four hundred elerks and special examiners engaged in that business. Out of the two hundred and twenty-nine clerks so epgiged

there were found two men who claimed to be Democrats. That made nearly four hundred men engaged in special examination of pension claims. And out of nearly.four hundred men, under a Republican administration, there were found but two Democrats, or men who dared to avow themselves Democrats. Now, what is the course of the present administration of the Pension Office ? It has been stated, and I will restate it, that the first seven-ty-one or seventy-two—to be safe I will say seventy-one—of the special examiners appointed by the present Commissioner of Pensions every one of them was a Republican. Some say “Oh! these were reappointments.” That may be true. But I reply that iu every instance the Commissioner had it in his power | to have appointed entirely new men, meu who had never before held the appointments. But instead of that, sir, he reappointed every one of the old appointees, although Republicans ; and yet gentlemen on that side jeer and sueer at General Black as a violator of the civil-service law. I think he could have obtained employes if he had selected competent Democrats ; but exercising his own judgment in this connection, as ho had a perfect right to do, he appointed, or reappointed, Republicans to fill the first seventy-one or seventy-two of the vacancies occurring among the special examiners. And yet your Republican Commissioner of Pensions weiit out of that office without leaving a single Democrat upon the list of special examiners. Was there ever such generosity and liberality shown to an opposing political party since this Government was organized as that shown by this much abused, gallant Union soldier who fills the high office of Commissioner of Pensions ? Why, what do you want, gentlemen ? Do you want all the appointments ? Is that what you are after ? If you do you had better elect a Republican President, and then, take my word for it, it will not be long before nearly if not all the officials will be Republican, just as it was when Mr. Cleveland came into office. Now. Gen. Black states that there have been eighty-four new appointments in addition to those I have mentioned since he came into power, and nearly all of these eighty-four, thanks to Geu. Black, were Democrats, just as it ought to be. It ia only about half of the special examiners corps. Now, what further could you ask of him? When the Civil Service Commission presents to him some 300 names from which he may select his appointees for special oxaminei s, and Geu. Black is called upon to make ths selection, he no doubt remembered how the Republican special examiners abused their power and became mere drill-sergeants of the Republican party. Now, can you expect him to appoint such men again? Exercising his own free will and judgment, he chose to select Democrats to fill at least about one-half of these positions. In this he acted fairly; at any rate, no Republican has a right to complain. Would a Republican commissioner have been as li) eral to Democrats? I insist it was bis right and duty to select at least one-half, if not more, of that corps from Democrats. Gentlemen on the other side Lave raised the fulso cry, and it is echoed by ttie partisan press of the Republican party, that a Democratic administration has removed Union soldiers from the public service and. replaced them with civilians or those who had served iu the Southern army. I am warranted in making the statement, sir, that if you will ascertain the number of Republican soldiers who have been removed from office under this administration it can be shown that an equal number of Democratic solditiß have been appointed. Now, I wish to say a word or two in regard to this civil-service cl tuse in this bill. I voted in committeo against the insertion of that clausa in this bill. lam opposed to its retent.ou in tho -bill now. With my understanding of the law aud of the rules of this House, I do not see how it can be properly inserted in this hill. I am no great admirer of this civil-service law. Mr. Cleveland, however, in the enforcement of the law, has done no more tiffin he pledged himself to do before aud since his election. In his adherence to the civil-sorvice law he has done what every Democratic voter of this land bade him do when they voted for him standing ou the Democratic platform which declared for civil-service reform. Evory Democratic platform since 1876, the one on which Tilden was elected, has declared in favor of civil-service reform. But, Mr. Chairman, why was this oivil-service law enacted ? Has that, question occurred to you during this debate ? Wherefore was tho necessity for the civil-service law ? I will tell you. After a long lease of power by the Republican party it had degraded the public service into the mud aud the mire. That service had become a sham and a disgrace among civilized nations. Republicans who were conscientious and who loved their country better than their party clamored for some law which would lift up the public service from the mire into which it had been trampled by Republican administrations. Am I warranted iu this statement ? I will read to you from the speech of as good a Republican as you have in your party, Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts. I beliove him to be as bitter and extreme a partisan as you have, but a man gifted at times with lofty ideas and patriotic sentiments. What has he said of the condition of the public service under your Republican administrations ? SENATOR HOAR’S ARRAIGNMENT. “My own public life has been a brief and insignificant one, extending littlo beyond the duration of a single term of Senatorial office ; but in that brief period I havo seen five Judges of a high court of the United States driven from office by threats of impeachment for corruption or maladministration. I have heard the taunt, from friendless lips, that when the United States presented herself in the East to take part with the civilized world in generous competition iu the arts of life, the only product of her institutions in which she surpassed all others beyond question was her corruption, and the political admiuistration of her chief city become a disgrace and a by-word throughout the world. “I have seen the Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs in the House, now a distinguished member of this court, rise in his place and demand tho expulsion of four of his associates for making sale of their official privilege of selecting the youths to be educated at our great military School. When the greatest railroad of the world, binding together the continent and uniting tho two great seas which wash our shores, was finished, 1 have seen our national triumph and exultation turned to bitterness and shame by the unanimour reports of three committees of Congress—two of the House and one hero—that every step of that mighty enterprise had been taken in fraud. I have heard in the highest x>laces the shameless doctrine avowed by men grown old in public office that the true way by which power should be gained in the Republic is to bribe the j>eople with the offices created for their service, and the true end for which it should be used, when gained, is the promotion of selfish ambition and the gratification of personal revenge. I have heard that suspicion haunts the footsteps of trusted companions of the President.” This is an indictment prepared by one of ycur most powerful leaders against the character of the public servico which existed under Republican administrations. It was a condition of things like this that induced the people to demand a reform in the civil service. I have not time to dwell upon other evidences of the corruption that prevailed under the old system, but I want to ask you what is the condition of the civil service to-day? The great bane of the republic, tho thing that threatens its life with more peril than anything else, was the system of political assessments which were levied under Republicau administrations uoon every office-holder from the highest to the lowest. Down in my Congressional district postmasters receiving but a trifling salary were importuned by circulars sent them in the nature of threats that, unless they surrendered a portion of thoir salaries, they would be required to surrender their official lives. Are any such things practiced under this Democratic admiuistraticn? You carried the election for President in 1880 by corrupting the ballot-box in Indiana, mainly by means of assessments forced out of the pockets of the employes of the United States. How has it been under the nresent Democratic administration? Have any political assessments been made? A Member—They have not had the chance yot. Mr. Townshend—Yes, sir; we had the chance last year in the election tor Governor in the State of New York—a very important election. That election was held without being influenced by the exercise of Federal patronage—without the levying of assessments upon any Democratic office-holder under Democratic administration. Seekers for glacial wonders must soon find them on this continent. Becent authorities say European glaciers are fast wearing away. The walls of Babylon were three hundred and fifty feet high—slave labor.