OCR Interpretation

Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, June 07, 1828, Image 1

Image and text provided by Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024689/1828-06-07/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

1-... ' .p.i.i.111, j>j, ■ , i „
VOL. I.~\n At*
I lie Ally CM ATE is published every ftitiuriny, at Three Doll-us
per annum, payable In advance. h w uonars
No subscription tvill bo received for less than twelve* Mouth* or
S«s,rw;iw:s,u,cretio" °f u,u u»‘« <*»Bmar
ri !ik!'!h? AIJVKRTlSINli.—One square, or less—First ianr
tion 7a cents each continuance, 50 cents. The number of inser.
nous must be noted on the M. X. or advcrtiiu-iiieiiUi will iH-rotitinin <|
and charged acchtdinjIv. C'liaiicerv nr«l«*r< not i .t
mp.ares will hr published lor Five Didlam. ’ tSCCCdj"* l'v<
be attonded'io!™ l° ^ EdU°” ,,,usl bc l**1 l'ai,I> orilmy wi
_CM a tooites vib.i.i:.
Albemarle County, May 28, 1828.
To the Editors of the Enquirer.
Gentlemen : I have-just seen ii: your paper of
of tlie 23d instant, a loiter from Mr. ichahod Bart
lett, which other considerations than tho soure'e
from which it comes, (however dignified that may
be,) induce me to notice. I hope Mr. Bartlett
will not consider me as dissenting from him at all
as to the “ little importance which” he says, “ ho
has attached to his speech,” for hardly any one
could have attached less to the speech itself than
1 did. It was not I, blit others, who happened to
find in it (as they fain supposed) some materials
for the "ratification of their prejudices against me
who gave the speech an importance, which it cer
tainly never possessed in my estimation, & which
the speaker, with fully as much truth as modesty,
lias now disclaimed for himself. I beg leave also
to say that, in the letter written by rne'toa friend
and constituent in Amherst, (which received a
publicity that was not designed for it by me.) my
object was not to answer Mr. Bartlett’s speech,
which I had thought sufficiently answered itself’
but to defend myself against certain charges of a
very serious character which had been made a
gailist me, t« ider the ostensible sanction of that
*»?ecch. In the“ temper and spirit” of those char
ges, which were given in an extract, literally tran
scribed lrom the letter ot iny correspondent, not
excepting me complimentary epithets at which
the gentleman, seems so much offended,—and in
the unreserved frankness with which an honest
representative ever communes with his constitu
ents, the public, l am sure, will recognize an am
ple apology for the “ temper and spirit” in which
my letter may have been written, even if there
had been nothing in the insinuations and innuen
dos of the gentleman’s speech to “justify” it.
But the gentleman not only complains of the
“ temper and spirit” of my letter, but of the scctic
and time of its appearance. Now, as the motive
lor willing the letter, was to defend myself against
certain charges, the letter could not, of course,
be written until the charges were known to have
been made, and nothing seems to he more natural
and proper than to answer charges before those,
to whom and among whom they were made. The
gentleman, however, would have it believed that
in not “ meeting him on the field which” lie says,
“ 1 had myself chosen,” and “in exhibiting my
prowess by flourish of drum and trumpet more' than
an hundred miles distant,” I was influenced by
some strange and unaccountable terror of his pro
sence. Pretending to no prowess myself, this
boast can excite no other feeling than one of mirth
in m3’ bosom. 1 he gentleman’s prowess, it is
true, has been “ exhibited” on one or two memo
rable occasions, which, I dare say, are still fresh
in the recollection of the public ; and how far tile
resemblance between those specimens of it and
that of his name-sake Air. Ichabod Crane, in his
rivalsilip with Abraham Van Brunt, and his race
with the galloping Hessian, would go.in the estima
tion of genealogists, to establish a kindred be
tween them, if not an identity, (for the mysterious
circumstances attending the disappearance of Ich
nbod Crane render it doubtful whether I10 is not
still in existence.) 1 leave to some future Dicdrich
Knickerbocker, who seems to bo the favourite
historian of the gentleman from Ncw-IIampshirc
to determine.
As to the period of gestation and labour that
preceded the birth of the gentleman’s letter, and
ol mine, and which lie seems to have thought it
material to discuss with great minuteness, Tf the
gentleman’s statement were precisely reversed 1
(loui)t not that it would bo. lully as correct. In
stead of devoting “ a small portion of l\\e. few hours
only that can now lie diverted from other engage
ments,” it is notorious the gentleman totally "aban
doned Ins other rnrraxemenfs in the House for seve
ral da) s alter the arrival of the Enquirer contain
ing my letter, and was confined with his reply
from the best information I can obtain, one week
nt least. Hew many accoucheurs were in atten
dance, or who they were, I am not able to say
4lin' it sufficiently appears from certain references
ih the letter, that the obstetrics of the State De
partment, as well as the statistics of the Treasury
were put in requisition. The public will perhaps
fee more interest in the character ofthe offspring
nnd will, doubtless, be surprised to learn that it is
n hybridous production proceeding from an unna
tural alliance between Amherst and New Hamp
shire : for the moment it was known in Amherst
that l had dared a vindication ofmvself a commu
nication was despatched to Mr. Bartlett call in <r un
ou him for “ aid aiul comfort,” which he has af
forded with as much promptitude as the nature of
the case admitted.
I hr gentleman, with a cruel joy,seems to ex
ult in the aggravation of my dyspeptic symptoms
occasioned by the swallowing of his “lees.” I
cannot find it in my heart to he so cruel and I as
sure the gentleman I have seen, with pity, the
melancholy indications of the jaundice arid the
spleen which “ returning the chalice to bis own
bps has produced upon him. As to the lecture
Mb.ch the gentleman is pleased to read me on
uintincrs, • will only say
i i 11 i ii. . ^*t r n,'np owb part,
I shall he gla.l to learn of rohh men "
and m he instructed in what “ becomes” me, by
those who know what becomes themselves.
r,u* tobe done with badinage which, however it
•nfly accord with the deserts of the gentleman I
feel not to bo respectful to the tribunal before
which he has summond me, T will proceed to no
t ee some o| the graver matter cont ained in his lel
ler. Notwithstanding the luimlde estimate he pro
fessis to pm upon his speech, beseems at least to
have thought ,t worthy of republication, ami has
acc»r.img.y introduced a large portion of it into
1 --•
his Utter. Although tlierc is not a remark in that
extract, affecting the correctness of the views pre
vious submitted by me, which I do not consider
opvrtothe most satisfactory reply, I shall forbear
to notice any other parts of it than those to which
lie hfs directed attention by his own commentary ;
for, alter having been worn down by a laborious
service of six months in Washington, I cannot
consult to-give up the time which 1 had hoped
would be sacred to reposo and domestic enjoy*
ments, even for the honor of a controversy with
the gentleman from Ncw-Jlampshire.
The gentleman refers to a part of this extract,
(in which he has undertaken to embody some re
marks made by me for the purpose of correctin'*
him,) to shew that instead of “settinghim right
in his .misconception of me,” I had “ detected
inyselt, in a bredth, ot two errors involving mil
lions in amount.” Now, how i« this matter l
The extract shews, (even taking it for authority,)
that rSiV gentleman made me to say that, “ from
three or four millions in Jefferson’s administra
tion, our expenditures have increased, in one
fourth of a century, to twenty-five millions.” I
said no such thing, and 1, therefore, rose to cor
rect the gentleman. I’hcre were two material er
rors in hi$ statement. He made me to speak of
the tcholc expenditures of the government, when
I had, in fact, spoken of the ordinary current ex
penditures only, as contradistinguished from pay
ments on account of public debt, and h6 then
made me to say that those expenditures under the
present administration, were twenty-five millions,
when I had stated that they were thirteen mil
lions. This appears from the gentleman’s own
evidence, and proves, that notwithstanding his
hold, no less than “ self-eomplaccnt assertion” to
the contrary, that I did sot “ him right in his mis
conception’ oJ what I had said, in two material
Jjut it yon will refer to my own speech, which
outfit, f should think, to he us good evidence of
what 1 said as the speeches which the gentleman
from N. Hampshire is kind enough to make for
me, you will see that [ stated the ordinary cur
rent expenditures of the government for the year
l^U-2 |which was the first entire year of Mr. Jef
ferson’) administration,) specifically at $3,737,
071) 0), and those of the present administration
for thqyear 1820, (which was the latest year for
which .they had then been fully settled and as
certained,) at $13,002,310 27. The first sum
was obtained both from Pitkin and Seybert, and
is warranted by the authority to which thccrentle
man himself has appealed, (Laws of U. S.°vol. 5
p. S:),) where the total expenditure for 1802 is
stated at 813,270,084 1)], and the payments on
accouit of the public debt, $1),539,004 70 leav
ing for the ordinary current expenditure, $3,737
<L1> Dl. The second sum was obtained from an
authority, which the gentleman himself will not
quostioo, the last annual Treasury Report, in
which (n. ) the whole expenditure for J820 is
staler! at $£4,103,498 40, ami the payments on
account of the pubiic debt, $11,041082 11)
or.<,in:ir^ c»T«nt expenditure’
Sl.{,0<j^,410 Both of these sums, as well as
the classification of expenditures adopted by me
nro farther warranted by the table compiled from
ofhcial documents and annexed to the Report of
the Committee on Retrenchment, (see ltep. No.
~ p. 80,) and also by the statements contained
in the counter-report submitted by the minority of
that committee, (see Rep. No. 2T>9 p 13J 130
LU.) Where, then, I would ask, except in the
inventive imagination, or in the reckless asser
tion of the gentleman from New-ilampshire is
the evidence of the “ twoenors involving millions
in amount ’ w hich, ho says it. appears from my
own correction of him, l committed in relation
to the expenditures of Mr. Jefferson's, and of the
present administration.
But 1 will now proceed to what is flic, gist of
the controversy between the gentleman from New
Hampshire and myself, the comparative expendi
tures ol the present and late administration du
rmg equal periods of time, and for certain speci
fied objects under the contronl of executive dis
cretion. 1 am glad to find that the
uis not changed the. issue between us, as I think
he would have been glad to do if he could
have anticipated the evidence which is now in
possession of the public upon this subject. Hut
there can be no “ novel assignment” or “ depar
ture,” asthe lawyers call it now. The gentleman
admits that the question between us was substan
tmlly this—" have the expenditures of the present
exceeded those of the late administration for the
objects in question, or not ?” 1 affirmed that they
had, and aaprima facie evidence of the fact ex
hibited a comparative statement of the appropri
ations for these objects during two equal terms of
three years under the late and present adminis
trafion, shewing a considerable excess on the side
of the present administration. At the same time
1 did not pretend that the appropriations afforded'
certain and precise evidence of the artual exprndi
tures, but thought they might be fairly resorted to
in the absence of other proof, as a general crite
rion for approximating the amounts expended —
dhe gentleman from New-Hampshire, on the
other hand contended that the expenditures of
the present had not exceeded those of the late
administration, and presented several compara
tive statements, the result of which was in each
case, a considerable excess of expenditure on the
side of the late administration—“ triumphant re
sults,” as he called them “ in favour of the pre
sent administration,” and “such” he added “as
are presented by every view of the subject found
ed upon Jacts, and not conjecture and supposi
'flic issue between us then was distinctly ioin
oc. upon this question of fact, whothet the expen
ditures of the present have exceeded those of the
Into administration, or not; and the approba
tions were resorted to only as evidence leading, by
presumption and approximation, to the amounts
arhmlUj expended. As the fart, has since been
ascertained by the investigations of a committee
specially charged with the enquiry, (the commit
tee on Retrench men!,) the question which the
gentleman from N. Hampshire, has so elaborately
discussed as to the fitness and sufficiency of the ret
r/ewe/: ceases to be one of any practical interest
Whether an appropriation ihude at the close of
Mr. Monroe’s administration is, or is not “ evi
dence of expenditure,1'\ as the gentleman calls it,
against Mr. Adams, is wholly immaterial who*
we know directly and positively what Mr. Adams'
STfyy WQrt T*f of tho committee,
jus alluded to, shows from official Documents fur
nished by the Executive Departments themselves,
the precise amount of expenditures, and utterly
prostrates the ingenious hypothesis so fondly con
bVhe gCnt!cma?>f‘om New Hampshire,
uh Ip ,t sustains with a remarkable co-incidence
and iin.forumy,the conclus imsl had formed,(from
a comparison of the approbations,) as to the ac
tu»l expenditures of the |X ,nd
inrp T' * J^^eonriomthat Reportthat,
in relation to every one <4* the objects embraced
in my comparative statcijoot. the expenditures of
& JC*CSCn ' *VC Iar*^ ■ ^ those of the
late administration and trial, too, in a ratio ol
increase varying as little as could have been ex
pected from that of the appropriations in some
instances, the excess* in the expenditures boi.m
versaGr * ^ * *** m tbe 0PPrnPrialiuns, and vice
In regard to the expenses of Foreign Inter
course both stated and contingent v hich have
torined the principal topic of controversy be
tween the gentleman from New-IIampshirc and
myself, you will find from the Report (p. <i ) that
those expenditures,including some otkersof minor
character made thro’ the Dcpartm&t of State,
stand as lollows
bate Administration.
1822 i
1*23 > $<>&>,<573 5
1824 )
Present Adu\inistration.
1825 )
1820r$77fr,81l 73
1827 )
Some particular branches of this expenditure
ailing under the head of contingent expenses c
foreign intercourse, exhibit a still higher rate o
excess than the aggregate. For example, tin
secret service expenditure, under the late and pro
sent administration for e<pial periods vus as fol
*22 ) 1825 )
ibll^'fr,,13° 07
making tho expenditure of this'charactci, during
the three years of the present administration, cx
eef*d liy $2,-578 the whole amount disbursed du
ring nine years under the two preceediuy admin
istration^. (See Rep. p. H, 12.)
tn another item coming under llie head of
contingent expenses of foreign intercourse, and
particularly liable to favoritism and abuse, that
ot bracers of despatches, there is also a very strik
ing excess on tho side of the present administra
tion, as appears from tho Report p. 14, where it
is stated as follows— •
1*25 j>
1820 >$18,386 12
1827 S
18*2*2 )
ls-23 > 80,827
1824 S
Besides the foregoing expenditures tinder the
controul of tile Department of State, tliere were
embraced in the .statement mado by ioc, tho up
propriations for the continncvtexpcnscs of each of
the other Departments. Whether the actual ex
penditures, as well us appropriations, under those
heads, during the three years of the present ad
ministrations, have exceeded the expenditures of
the last three years of the late administration un
der the same heads, the following statements ex
tracted from the same Report will shew. The
contingent expenses of wl»t may be called the
j reason/ Department proper, exclusive of the
General Land Office, (which is a distinct system
of administration in itself,) arc as follows_
1822 ) 1825 )
1825 - 803,803 73 1826 f $72,495 03
lc?21) 1827)
-pi .. ‘ See Rep. p. 21.
cxpcusoB of the War Department, as fol
!*22) 1825)
82=1 S.$21,707 1820 > $28,676
lo24 ) 1827 >
. I,. See Rep. n. 23.
-\n.l tho contingent expenses of the Navy Department,
as follows— I *
| s22 ) 1825)
( •1W 01 1820 > $14,081 30
1*S« ) 1827 S
Sco Rep. p. 25.
. uiu iriumpnam results” of the gentleman
from New-Hampshire, “ in favour of this adminis
tration, and the beautiful fabric of his statistics,
are laid low beneath the irresistible power of stub
born facts. Nor is this conclusion to be evaded by
objecting that the year 1825 is put to the account
ol the present administration in all the fore^oinn
statements. Whatever plausibility there may be
in contending that the appropriations of 1825
should be carried to the account ol the late admin
istration, as having been made before, (though but
a very few days before) its termination, there can
be no foundation for such a pretension in relation
to the expenditures ol 1825, live sixths, if not the
whole ol which, were under the present adminis
tration. Accordingly you will sbe that in com
munications addressed to the committee on re
trenchment, by the Secretary of State and the
Secretary ol W ar, while they resort to divers other
ingenious combinations and involutions to bring
out a favorable result, they in every case put down
the expenditures ol 1825 to the account of the
present administration. You will further sec that,
in relation to the expenses of foreign intercourse
on which the controversy between Mr. Bartlett
and myself has almost exclusively turned, it is dis
tinctly admitted both by Mr. Clay, and Messrs.
Sergeant Everett, (the minority of the commit
tee on Retrenchment) that the expenditures of the
three years of the present administration have ex
ceeded those of an equal period of the last admin
istration. They admit the fact, and then seek to
explain and account for it. Tt was reserved for
. the “ prowess” ot the gentleman from .'Vcw-Hamp
•<5nire alone, to lake ladder ground and deny a fact
which every body else now admits.
Although the gentleman has not openly con
j tended that the expenditures of 182-5 should not
bo charged to the present administration, and 1
suppose will hardly do so, “ while he hopes" (to
use his own language) «• to escape a judgment of
idiocy or insanity yet apprehending that, if they
should be so charged, they might overwhelm his
beautiful statistical hypothesis, he evidently shows
a disposition to throw an emehnr to windward._
1 lc talks about “ the purposes, to which an appro
| print ion tva? to he applied, lieing decreed under a
former Administration bid, surely, a gentleman
who has such an instinctive horror of “ a judgmem
ol i cioey or insanity,” hnd who discourses with al
tho familiarity of a hero of the ferule, (another trail
0 f resemblance between him ami Mr. fcli^hoc
Crane) “of beating ideas into other people's heads’
though, to speak truly, this process of instruction
seems not to have been very effectual in his own casf
—-sucji a gentleman,surely,will not gravely content
that an appropriation for foreign intercourse is ir
the nature of a decree, and that the Executive i;
bound to expend every cent of an appropriation
which Congress makes—generally upon its own
I ho gentleman also lalks “ about expenditures
tendered necessary by measures which hud l>eed
devised, and liabilities which had been incurred
by a preceding executive.” But it happens,
unfortunately for this Suggestion, that a farm ,!
V”",ofthc for°‘gn intercourse appropriations o(
—» were applicable to new appointments, where
there were existing vacanurs, as in the missions
to Condon, to Madrid, to .Mexico, to Uauten.ala,
to itrazd, and to Buenos Ayres, which oI course
c t the new President entirely at liberty to con
Mut lus own judgment as to the propriety olTillin"
them. ®
The dispute between the gentleman from Xew
fiaiiipsluro and myself, as to the comparative ex
penditures of the present and the late administra
tion, being now decided by an official and authen
tic ascertainment of the fatft, it can, no longer,
be of importance to discuss the justness of tim'dif
lerent processes ol reasoning and calculation by
which we attained to our dilfercnt conclusions.—
1 should be content, myself, to roly upon the truth
ol iny conclusions, now shewn by an official exhi
bition ol lacts, as evidence of the correctness of
iny reasoning, and vice versa, as to tho gentle
mans; hut as he has indulged in many remarks
on tins branch of the subject, I must be'T your in
dulgence briefly to notice them.
1 he gentleman, who is no less formidable as a
logician than as a parliamentary orator, threatens
me with the horns of a dilemma, in consequence
ol my reference to the fact that the forei-M, inter
course appropr.ations of were made upon
the estimates of Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State,
at a lime when there was a strong probability that
he was to bo the President who would have the
expenditure of these appropriations—a fact refer
red to by me to shew how correct the gentleman
was a, his assertion that “ Mr. Adams had nothing
to do with these appropriations.” He now calls
upon mo either to release Mr. Adams altogether
from responsibility for the appropriations of
or otherwise give him credit for the appropoiations
ol the three preceding years, which were, in like
manner, made upon his estimates. Put does not
the gentleman perceive that there is a peculiar
reason for holding Mr Adams responsible for his
recommendations of 182-> in the circumstance of
lus probable succession to a station that would
give him tho command and disbursement of the
appropriations recommended—a probability which,
no doubt, existed in the hopes and calculations of
Mr. Adams on the I4th Nov. 1824, when, the
gentleman has discovered, by his access to the
arcana imperii, that tho estimates “ actually va<
f[lC h(m<,S °fthr Cretan,’' as well as on
the Hnil Jan. 18&>, when they were communicat
ed to the House. If the gentleman docs not per
cene the distinction, his difliculty, unlike that of
U outer V an 1 wilier,whose ideas were so hip as not
to he turned in his head, may be that of another
petsor ago commemorated by the same historian
and already alluded to-tlie gentleman’s narne
Nli'*1, I ch a bod Crane, whose phrenological
structure “ his head being very small, and flat at
top, as described by Diedrich Knickerbocker,
did not admit of the reception of any other than
ideas of the smallest dimensions.
Che gentleman, after tossing me for some time
on the horns ol his logic, no sooner lets me down
than he salutes mo in affected amazement at an
other of mv paradoxes, with the prodigious excla
mation of Dominie Sampson, another of that tribe
of pedagogues, between which, and the r.rcn,Io
nian from New-IIampshire, there seems to he a
remarkable congeniality. Pet us sec what is the
occasion of this ejaculation of tho gentleman’s as
tonishment ? Taking the appropriations for a se
lies je.ir.s as a general criterion lor approximating
the expenditures of the government, I had, with a
wow ol forming some probable estimate of the
comparative expenditures of the late and present
administration,presented a statement of approprai
tions for the three last years of the late.iSo (be three
years of the present administratk.*:. At the same
time, this evidence was stated to be neither pre
cise nor conclusive, and was intended to be used
ad interim only, until the actual expenditures
could he investigated and ascertained, as they
might readily be, inasmuch as all the years includ
ed in my statement were elapsed. The gentleman
from New-Hampshire, not liking the result of mV
statement, set himself to work, to contrive one of
more agreeable, aspect, and at length produced a
statement, in which he saddled the first year of
Mr. Adams’ administration on the back of Mr.
Monroe, and in lieu of it took in, on the side of
Mr. Adams, the present year, which had justthen
commenced,^*the expenditures of which,of course,
were unascertained, and iinasccrtaiuable. This
statement is so prodigious a specimen of the gen
tleman's statistical ingenuity and resources, that f
must in justice to him, introduce it. Here it is :
The amount of appropriations for foreign in*
tercourse, then, stands thus :_
In 1*23 #**2,000 In \->i\ *7.nf)0
1*2-1 i*n.r«oo 1*2? 1*1.000
lb2-» 213,000 r.inHnni fo.000
1©2;5 4U, (MW)
#1*1,500 #157,000
leaving the expenses of the three last years '■‘27,000
less than the three last appropriations of the pre
ceding administration. —I he expense ol the three
last years. Mark the expression, I pray you. Ap
propriations and expenditures are. used as conver
tible terms, and the appropriation of 000 is
put down lo represent the whole expenditure of
the present year for foreign intercourse—a sum
hardly one fourth of the amount which was actu
ally at the disposal of the administration for the
service of the year, and nearly the whole ol which
too, it was certain from a comparison with the
average expenditure of pa-t you-, would l» err
•flirfw/. Was not the “ suppression of this fact '*
l»en directly calculated to make a false itnnres
tl,° ,mnd» a,,d would not the gentleman's
statement have been more fair and .nore correct
1 he had included the additional sums which
were at the service of the udministra fon
C l wou,dt 111 «" probability, be expended }
; K t »;o Hays that these additional sums were saved
” th? appropriations ofl82<l and 1827 and
o have included them i„ his Statement won Id
IwSS, ’a," C,mr-od t,,G ^ministration
twice with the same sums. Such, however
I "ot th?,?as,J; a W 'ounrt fn.,,; a„
of the Document murker! 0., aoncv rl t„ .he
lvonort olllin Rnmmillon
, u. ..... j.rudiment marked O., annexed in ih
| -o°l”l‘C!'1 !C c.°mn>i‘,e* »'■ Hetrenclirucnl (,, 4
! VC of unex,.en,Ie,r.,e ^liad ‘'>0
• -0 *»« JWm7, the adrnin -Nation iiad thd
*.;c of unexpended balances of n>rmcV?tT,nronrr£
ev.vr/,,,:v?over at ^ *•&»*»* «Tti,«
y* ar .15 Ji, to the amount of 885-f»-28 _This
i.non tV0'1 at jCaSt'?u5,u to buve been added,
upon IV. gentlemans own principles.—But the
gentleman treats this afihir as ilit were altogether
in liis'^N ,iV my °U n‘ 1 bc*loave to correct him
m tins. Nothing was said of unexpended ba/anres
■n my own stamen,s, nor did the principle upon
*1 11 ‘°y r <M & kmn,!od require that any notice
l'"'“V:;,lk™ It «s the flagrant <!c
ects of the gentleman’s stalen.enr, which su^es
ted the idea, as a means of rendering that state*
done "IT CO,rCCl’ a1 U certainly would have
done. 1 have never understood that a workman is
responsi blo for the quality of an article, which ha
<r,;b:;catc’,)ut ,n:crciy p^hwand ...e.,^
as w eb its* tlio original badness of the article will
admit 11 it be otherw.se, i shall be very cau
tious how i meddle w ith the gentleman’s statistics.
1 he gentleman seems to delight himself vrrv
much whu another pro-di-^i (t„s discovery winch
mpSnCfC.Si 'C ,KlS UKUle’ ofan orror 111 »">' s'atc
mcnt°f the appropriations “for the contingent
expenses of foreign intercourse.’* J am sorry to
disappoint him again, for his faithful and zealous
labours deserve some, reward. The gentleman,
' eager hope of a triumph, quotes my confident
asscrvation that “ m my statement, 1 know there
is no error. repeat it, and the gentleman can
iSZ'n°r?\J!° 8a>'f’.lJ,atin oach «‘*tho years
^ .nd I ~d m which I set down nolhiinr for
contingent expenses of foreign intercourse ”
here was appropriated a sum often thousand doV
l;irs lor contingent expenses of missions.” Now
H the gentleman had deigned to look at the table
111 ,my speech, which is the identical one that l
ex,whited in the House, he would have seen that
a(l<1,t,°V? tl,c appropriations “ for contingent
expenses ol foreign intercourse,” I had stated in a
xparuh 11nr these very appropriations for “con
tingent expenses of missions,” which he now
brings up to convict me of error. But the gcntlc
!JV,in lc },as 90011 no,,e of my separate lines.
110 rea90"> 1 P' ^mne is that they are straight
m‘V . “ ,i,c;V I,a<l heen double oi crooked, they
might have pleased his taste better.—But without
the aid of hues, one would have supposed that a
gentleman who has so thoroughly explored our ap
propriation laws as the gentleman from N If
oujlit to have learnt by this time that the'two
lui!(.< here spoken of, are entirely distinct, one
intended to provide for the incidental expenses of
our regular diplomatic missions abroad, and the
other for extraordinary expenses of foreign inter
course not du'ectly incident to those missions
Hence distinct appropriations are always made
for them, as the gentleman will see by deMtn*
to look at the appropriation laws, without the
painful necessity ol looking at rny separate lines
horror SCeni l° *‘avc lnslMrc^ him with a strange
But the gentleman would persuade you that lie
lias found another error in my statement of theso
appropriations. He says that in the year 182*2 in
w hich I state there was no appropriation made
tor contingent expenses of foreign intercourse ”
there was a large unexpended balance from for
mer appropriations, which ought to have taken
the place of tins nothing. Now as I professed to
give the appropriations only, and them merely as
furnishing a general “ criterion for approximating
the actual expenditures of the government,” J
should Jiko to know upon what principle it is that
iiiuuu, upon me authonty of the ap
propriation laws, (behind which I did not. pretend
to go,) that no appropriation was made for a par
ticular object in a given year, is falsified by shew
1,13 tIiat t iere was an unexpended balance ot fqr
mer appropriations remaining over in that year
( however, I liad treated appropriations as one
0,1(1 f/\c *amr with expenditures, as we have
seen that the gentleman from N. II. did, and es
pecially il l had introduced a blank appropriation
or a particular year into a table of actual expendi
tures, thereby leading to the inference that „o
t lung was or could he expended in that vear I
should have felt it due to candour, to have gone
behind the appropriation laws, and to have en
quired whether there was not something in hand
to JO expended, tho no new sum was appropriated.
1 he gentleman takes exception to a remark
made by me that “he had, in effect, passed o\T
two for three years of flic expenditures of tho
present administration,” and pronounces it to |>o
incorrect. Now as this is a curious sample of the
propensity which very early displayed itself in the
parliamentary career ot the gentleman, to “ make
insinuations & then disclaim them,” I will subjoin
the portion ot bis speech, to which my remarks
referred, that others may judge of the construction
proper to be put upon it. Speaking of the contin
g'-nt expenses of foreign intercourse he says “ there
was expended of this fund
In l 'Or,
In t<n
•8 H.f>27,07
No 11pp. nsiicd.
.<70. gor.,nr,
Why, I would ask,
which flic years I^gtl.
!?•'. 1,875,70
1 lies*' parallel columns, m
. - J82' and 1828 were ar
ranged on the one side, and »hc years IS2”
and !*:>.> on the other—why were additions made
beneath all tl.e years in each of the columns m
chic.ing the year 1828, ami why were the sum' re
sulting from those additions then sett off against
eac.t ot.ier—-why, in short was it said that “there
xv*< expendedn\ this fund m fcc.“ proceeding with
nil Il-m *. f arsenumcraied undnnraib, unl<'«<, ,t
lu’cuJcd to make the impression that tl.e r rftn h■

xml | txt