Republican Extravagance vs.

Democratic Economy

The Democratic party is in favor of economy in the public service, while the Republican party has been an organization of extravagance. The general policies of the two parties as to the tariff naturally leads to this result. The more money that is needed to meet the expenses of the Government, the greater tax must be imposed to produce the revenue, and the better excuse there is for a high tariff. The Republican party has been interested in the protection of special interests, and has encouraged expenditures until it has led to wastefulness. The Democratic party, on the other hand, insists that no more taxes shall be levied than are necessary to meet the demands of the Government economically administered. It insists that any greater tax than this is not warranted either in law or morals.

In Jefferson's inaugural address, in enumerating the "essential principles of our Government," he included "economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened.". Mr. Jefferson understood that in the last analysis labor must pay the burdens of Government, and that "economy in the public expense" was to be practiced to avoid placing heavy burdens upon the backs of the men who labor.

When Samuel J. Tilden was presented for the Presidency in 1876, the New York Democrats declared it to be "their settled conviction that a return to the constitutional principles, frugal expenses, and administrative purity of the founders of the Republic is the first and most imperious duty of the times-the commanding issue now before the people of the Union." At that time the national expenditures for 1875, which called forth that strong statement, amounted to $274,000,000. The grand total, “regular and permanent annual appropriations" now aggregate $1,079,449,288.96.

The Democratic party in its present platform very forcefully states its position, and insists upon the strictest economy in every part of the Government, compatible with frugal and efficient administration.

The expenditures of the Government during the sixty years of Democratic rule from 1800 to 1860 did not average two dollars per capita, and was only two dollars and one cent in 1860, the last year of Democratic ascendency. The expenses of Government have grown so enormously under Republican rule that the total appropriations made during the last session of Congress will make a per capita liability of about twelve dollars.

In the speech of Hon. James A. Tawney, Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, delivered May the 30th, 1908, he submitted, among other things, the following table:

Per capita average expenditures for

This table shows the greatest expenditure, prior to 1860, when the Republicans came into power, to be $2.02 per capita, while in 1907 it had grown to the enormous sum of $6.77 per capita, and this exclusive of postal expenditures.

In the two years that Mr. Cleveland was President, and in which Congress was Democratic, there was a reduction in the appropria

tions for the first year of fifteen million dollars, and in the second year a further reduction of eleven and one-half million dollars.

With all the extravagance of the Republican party, and its reckless expenditure of the people's money from time to time, nothing has ever been done that has shown so deliberate and premeditated an attempt to deplete the Treasury as in the Congress which has recently adjourned, and in no period of four years in the Government's history, have appropriations been so lavishly made as in the last four years of Mr. Roosevelt's administration. The expenses for the fiscal year of 1906 were $736,717,582; for 1907, $762,488,752; appropriations for the fiscal year, 1908, $920,798,143; for fiscal year, 1909, $1,008,884,884. These stupendous sums make an aggregate of thirty-four million dollars more than was expended during the four years of the Civil War, and by far surpasses any expenditure ever made at any other period.

Not many years ago a single Congress made appropriations in two years aggregating one billion dollars, and when this was called to the attention of the country it rebuked the party responsible by the election of a Democratic House of Representatives. But now we have reached a period where the extraordinary recklessness of the Republican party has made the appropriations for a single session amount to more than a billion dollars, and this in face of the fact that there was a constantly growing deficit at the time the appropriations were made. The expenditures in the last fiscal year exceeded the receipts by about sixty million dollars, and according to the estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury, the receipts of the Government for the present fiscal year will amount to $878,123,011.30, or more than one hundred and thirty million dollars less than the appropriations made by Congress. The estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury were made prior to the present panic, and if he were called upon now to revise the estimate it would be a far less sum, so that the deficit in the revenues in the current year will be more than one hundred and thirty million dollars.

How is this deficit to be overcome? When, and how, will this debt be paid? Shall money be borrowed to meet it? No man can succeed in business who finds at the end of each year that he has expended more than he has received, and no Government can stand if there is a continual balance against it at the end of each year. In a time of profound peace, with abundant crops on ever hand, what excuse can be given for so wild an expenditure of the people's money?

The expenditures for the navy during the last four years have been greater than the total expenditures made by the Democratic party for the naval establishment for the sixty years from 1800 to 1860; more than the naval expense for the twenty years from 1870 to 1890, and greater than the total expenses from 1890 to 1900, including the Spanish-American war.

The appropriations for the army in the last four years have increased twenty-five million dollars, while the number of officers and enlisted men in the army itself have decreased more than five thousand in that time. How can this condition be satisfactorily explained?

ONE BILLION A YEAR!

The late William B. Allison was for many years Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In that capacity he rendered distinguished service. His knowledge of public affairs was extensive, accurate, practical. His sense of responsibility was keen. His inclination to economy was pronounced. Yet in his time national expenditures more than doubled, and but for his watchfulness the increase would have been even greater.

Writing in the anniversary edition of The World on May 10 last, Senator Allison presented some figures bearing upon the national sin of extravagance in a way that was more eloquent than many words would have been. It was one of his last public utterances. He drew no conclusions and he pointed no morals, but he set forth the facts with startling emphasis.

In the twenty-five years from 1883 to 1908 the total annual appropriations by Congress increased from $422,138,073 to $920,798,143.

The army increase was from $27,258,000 to $78,634,582; the navy from $14,819,976 to $98,958,507; the postoffice from $44,643,900 to $212,091,193; pensions from $116,000,000 to $146,000,000, and sundry civil from $25,589,358 to $110,769,211.

The country's growth furnished no adequate excuse for this lavish expenditure. Most of the increase must be attributed to the crazy war spirit, to foreign adventure, to political jobbery and to recklessness and waste.

Senator Allison was called a crusty old conservative in financial matters, and there is a radical in lowa who seeks and for some time has been seeking his place. Let us hope that his successor, whether radical or conservative, will have money sense and common sense, as well as common honesty and prudence.-The New York World. SENATOR CULBERSON'S STATEMENT.

Senator Culberson, in an address in the Senate, on the subject of new offices created, submitted the following tables and statement in regard to them:

Number new

Or an average for the six years of 1,713 new offices, carrying an average appropriation of $1,003,069.56 created each year.

$69,543,506.42

Or an average for the six years of President Roosevelt's administration of 16,553 new offices, carrying an average appropriation of $11,590,584.40, created each year.

It appears, therefore, that during the six years of President Roosevelt 89,040 more offices were created than during the six years from 1893 to 1898, inclusive, at an increased expense to the Government of $63,535,089.03 more than during the period from 1893 to 1898.

Patriotic Germans used to complain of the fact that imperialism compelled every man who labored to carry a soldier on his shoulders. The tremendous increase in public expenses in the United States imposes a burden upon the taxpayers of America that has sharply called public attention to the new era of extravagance which the Republican Administration has inaugurated.

What is the reply of the Republican party to this appalling situation? Simply, "We did it; we are responsible for it."

The present candidate for the Vice Presidency on the Republican ticket in the House of Representatives on April, the 8th, 1908, said: "The Republican party in this House, the Republican party in this Nation, is prepared to-day to accept full responsibility not only for everything that is done, but for that which is not done in the way of legislation and administration."

Mr. Dalzell, one of the Rules Committee of the House, and Speaker Cannon's strongest support, said: "I think we shall be able to demonstrate from this time out not only that the minority shall not enact any legislation, but that the legislation of the majority shall be such as the majority desires to pass in its own way, and at its own time, by exercise of the rules of the House."

Mr. Payne, the Republican floor leader in the House, and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, speaking of the Republican party in the House, said: "We are doing this business; we are legislating; we are responsible for what we do, and we are responsible for what we do not do, and we propose to assume the responsibility for it from beginning to end."

After this frightful waste of the people's money, and abuse of legislative power, the Republican party comes back to the people with neither apology nor excuse, and, in effect, says: "It is done. What are you going to do about it?" "Help yourselves, if you can."

The Democratic party demands that this wanton waste shall cease. That there shall be frugality in the fiscal affairs of the Republic; that business methods shall be applied; that economic principles shall be observed; that there shall be a strict scrutiny of the accounts in the various branches of the Government, and that the appropriations shall be limited to the needs of the Government, and it pledges itself to follow this course, if instrusted with power.

UNPARALLELED EXTRAVAGANCE

(St. Louis Post-Dispatch.)

Of scarcely less importance than the issue of political integrity is the issue of administrative economy. Never before was there such a debauch of extravagance in modern government as that which the Roosevelt administration is responsible for. In place of the sensational Billion-Dollar Congress which Speaker Reed was compelled to defend we have the Two-Billion-Dollar Congress, spending a thousand millions of public money at each annual ses

sion.

As Senator Allison of Iowa, Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, explained in a statement prepared for the anniversary number of the New York World, the appropriations for the army alone are $51,000,000 more than they were 25 years ago. During this period naval appropriations have increased $84,000,000, and pensions have jumped $30,000,000 a year. Theodore Roosevelt, Congress in the last three years has appropriated $3,428,000,000 from the public treasury, or nearly $35,000,000 more than was appropriated during four years of civil war.

Under

In a recent statement James A. Tawney of Minnesota, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, said:

"In my opinion the chief duty of a great independent newspaper during the next decade is, or should be, to combat the alarming tendency in this country toward paternalism and militarism. When we remember that almost 65 per cent. of the Government's revenues, exclusive of postal receipts, is to-day being spent to meet the cost of wars, past and anticipated, the seriousness of the frantic rushing to the front as a great military power is alarming. If the present military and naval program is adopted and expenditures for war purposes continue to increase, it is not unreasonable to estimate that within the next two years the Government will be spending 70 per cent of its total income on war and the fear of it.

"Great Britain alone approaches the United States in the percentage of her revenues expended in maintaining the military arm of her Government.”

BOGUS REVISION.

Interview in New York Sun, November 14, 1905, of Representative Babcock, of Wisconsin.

"What would revision by the coming Congress, through the committees of House and Senate, as now constituted, amount to? Those committees are dominated by men who favor the high protection idea, Chairman Payne and Representatives Dalzell and Grosvenor would head the Republican sub-committee to draw the bill, and none of them would support such a measure. as the Republican friends of revision want."

[The same men control legislation in 1908 as Mr. Babcock ys controlled in 1905.]

The Grosscup Standard Oil

Decision

Wednesday, July 22, 1908, was a notable day for the Standard Oil trust magnates. Judge Peter S. Grosscup, speaking for the United States Court of Appeals, reversed the judgment of Judge Kenesaw M. Landis, who fined the Standard Oil trust $29,240,000. The grounds upon which Judge Landis' decision was reversed are briefly stated as follows:

That the trial court abused its discretion in the post-trial investigation which was held after the conviction of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and by measuring the amount of the fine by the ability of the parent corporation-the Standard Oil Com. pany of New Jersey-to pay.

That the trial court was in error in excluding evidence of knowledge and intent on the part of the defendant in the acceptance of rebates.

That the trial court erred in the manner of computing the number of offenses. Each cash settlement and not the shipment of each carload of oil constituted an offense.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

The history of the Standard Oil case is told by the Chicago Record-Herald in this way:

The prosecution of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana on the charge of accepting rebates from the Chicago & Alton railroad has been in the courts for almost two years. The indictment on which the conviction was secured was one of ten true bills returned by the Federal Grand Jury August 29, 1906.

A violation of the Elkins law was the specific charge set up by the Government. There were in this indictment 1,903 counts, of which 441 subsequently were stricken out by Judge Landis. Shipments of oil from the company's refinery at Whiting, Ind., to East St. Louis at rates lower than those published in the Alton's tariff sheets formed the concessions about which the Government complained.

These shipments and the acceptance by the Oil Company of the alleged rebates covered a period of eighteen months--from September, 1903, to March, 1905.

While the legal rate of shipment from Whiting to East St. Louis was 18 cents for each 100 pounds of oil, the defendant corporation, according to the testimony, paid but 6 cents. It also paid 72 cents on shipments to St. Louis, while the published tariff called for 191⁄2 cents.

The Standard Oil Company maintained, however, that it was paying to the Alton road the legal rate because its shipments. did not reach the lines of the Alton until they crossed the State line at Chappel, Ill. To substantiate this a typewritten billing order was submitted showing that the rate from Chicago and neighboring points, including Whiting, should be 6 cents.

The Government was able to show that the shipments were not made from Chappel, but from Whiting, and that between the two points there existed a legal 10-cent rate. Whiting was over the State line and therefore this rate did not apply.

The trial occupied the attention of Judge Landis for six weeks. The jury was sworn in March 4th, and the first witness was heard the following day. More than three tons of documentary evidence were submitted to the jury. This included more than 15,000 way bills, shipping orders, receipts and transcripts from records and accountants' books.

Throughout the trial there were numerous contentions ove technical points, and April 13th the issues were submitted to