Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 36, Number 112, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 September 1904 — Political Comment [ARTICLE]

Political Comment

Governmental Extravagance Jude Parker in his speech to the Democratic editors accused the present administration of “reckless extravagance anti waste of the people's money.” To substantiate his charge he contrasts Hie expenditures of the last three years with those of the first Cleveland administration. During that first terin, says Judge Parker, "the average annual expenditure was $269,060,000,” while "for the last three years It hid been $519,000,000. The governmental expenditure last year mounted up to $582,000,000.” Judge Parker is accurate in bis figures, but it does not follow that he is correct In his conclusions. An increase in expeditures does not necessarily Involve great waste and extravagance. A larger population necessitates larger expenses. The United States had less than 60,000,000 Inhabitants In 1887, and it has over 81,000,000 now. New governmental duties call for larger appropriations. Mr. Cleveland did not have Porto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii to care for. The matter w4ll be beter understood when a comparison is made of the sums spent on certain important branches of the public service in 1887 and In the last fiscal year. The outlay on the navy in 1887 was $15,141,-

000. Last year it was $102,942,000. There is an advance of over $87,000,000. Does it prove extravagance? The people will say no, firstly because it takes more money to support the larger navy of .1904—there practically was no navy seventeen years ago—and secondly because the work of building up the navy is being carried on unremittingly’ with the hearty approval of nearly all Americans. They do not grudge a single dollar that is spent on the construction or upkeep of battleships. They do not look on the small expenditures of the first Cleveland term for naval purposes as evidence of economy but rather of parsimony perilous to the safety of the republic. The war department expenditures were $38,561,000 in 1887 and $115,153,000 In 1904. The difference is due in small part to an increase, in the' strength of the army. That was necessary because of territorial expansion and to provide men for the great guns which have been installed in the coast defenses. A considerable part of the money spent by the war department last year went towards coast defenses and their armament, making better guns for the soldiers, and generally putting the country in a state of readiness for war if it should come. There has been no waste of the public money In these expenditures. The money has been spent prudently—in taking out an Insurance policy. If the first Cleveland administratldn had spent more money for military purposes the McKinley administration would not have had to spend so much when the war with Spain broke out. Certainly the Roosevelt expenditures are higher than those of the first, (Cleveland term, ami last year’s were especially large, because of the $50,000,000 paid on account of the Panama canal.. The people do not call that an extravagance. When a sum of money is squandered or spent foolishly that Is extravagance. An even greater sum invested wisely would means be extravagance. Money sjient on rivers and liarbors, rural free delivery, the army ami navy, irrigation, the Panama canal Is not extravagance, but investment and insurance. It would have Is-en miserliness and hence folly to have gone without rural delivery, the new navy, and the Panama canal.— Chicago Tribune. Will Agree with the President. Who among our workingmen I* willing to favor a tariff change which would reproduce In the country the ata gnation. idleness ami distress of the years following 1893? What work-

ingman does not see the wisdom of a protective policy which maintains a higher average wage In the United States than that which obtains tn Europe? Our myriads of industrial workers will heartily agree with the President that tariff readjustment, when made, must maintain and not destroy the protective principle.— Toledo Blade. The President's Letter. Every reader of the President's letter of acceptance must be struck by Its vigorous tone. In its reply to criticism it suggests offense rather than defense. Its sentences are a series of ringing challenges which present the record of the Republicans as a record of splendid achievement, and heighten the effect by stinging intimations that the opposition is disunited, inefficient and Insincere. The same note is sounded whether the subject be the tariff, imperialism, constitutionalism, the trusts, the Philippines br the finances—what the Republicans have done is right, and an assurance that the Republican party will continue to do right if It is retained In power. On the other hand, what the Democrats propose to do is at liest a disquieting enigma. They do not agree among themselves and arte involved in a maze of contradictions.

Shiftiness characterizes all their utterances. When, for example, they cry out for economy, where do they propose to economize? How can they answer such questions as these: ‘•Do our opponents grudge the fifty millions paid for the Panama canal? Do they intend to cut down on the pension t to the veterans of the civil war? Do ,_ey intend to put a stop to the irrigation policy? or to the permanent census bureau? Do they intend to abolish rural free delivery? Do they Intend to cut down the navy? or the Alaskan telegraph system? Do they intend to dismantle our coast fortifications? If there IS to tie a real and substantial cutting down in national expenditures It must be In such matters* as these. The Department of Agriculture has done service of Incalculable value to the farmers of thl* country in many different lines. Do our ojmonents wish to cut down the money for this service? They can do it only by destroying the usefulness of the sendee itself.” Thf excerpt gives a very fair idea of the gay the battle is pressed home. There is no abatement of the fighting spirit at apy point, and the dissensions among the Democrats In recent years will uytke it exceedingly difficult for them to extricate themselves from some of the dilemmas in which they are placed by the President’s unsparing log c. We imagine that the letter will result In a louder demand than ever fe>m Democrats for a more aggressive leadership on Judge Prrker’a part.—-Chicago Record-Herald.

V*ooaevelt Never Said It. The dterary bureau of the Democratic rational committee is reported to be c.rculatlng the report that the President said in a spee«‘h made in “Jfr. Bryan and his adherents have aris-aled to the basest set In the land —the farmers.” The Pcesldent long ago denied that he ever piade the remark; but it was quoted a/ his utterance in some congressional speech, jterhaps more than one. prejjared for canqmlgn use. and the literature department of the Democratic party la sending the falsehood through f ie country. This is monstrous and shameful. It deserves the condemnation of all decent men. The charge is so incredible on Its face that it should not have b«>en given currency without conclusive, Indisputable proof of Its truth. The Democratic campaign managers should repudiate it and make apologies for ever sanctioning It.—Boston Herald.