« AnteriorContinuar »
1848, "there was in the Treasury the sum of $62,304 45, which sum was increased in 1854 to half a million of dollars." In this connection "the undersigned" omits a very important link in the history of the State. He is perfectly oblivious as to the source from which this surplus was obtained, and gives no explanation whether it was a bona fide surplus, or simply a balance of borrowed money, on hand, kept on hand by a process of "shinning" adopted in the early history of the State by his party, and which would do credit to the most experienced street operator in New York or Boston. Had "the undersigned" been disposed to meet the issue fairly, he would not have omitted such an important link, but would have stated the fact that this money was all borrowed, and its appearance in the State Treasury was only an evidence of indebtedness of the State to that amount. It is a well known fact that the State has but one fund-" the general fund"-and that this fund is and has been bankrupt for the past twenty years. Upon this point the report of the majority well says:
Another source of the large surplus in the Treasury, was the system adopted in relation to our Trust Funds, by which the principal was loaned to the State as fast as received, and used for the payment of current expenses or outstanding liabilities."
And it is evident at first sight that a balance of that character, and so obtained, instead of being an evidence of State prosperity and financial strength, is a direct admission and an unanswerable argument to the contrary. A careful search into the facts would have revealed to "the undersigned" this truth-that in addition to the enormous debt entailed upon the State by the recklessness and extravagance of the Democratic party, amounting, in 1854, to over two millions of dollars, the State, under this Democratic policy, had also borrowed from other sources, to pay its current expenses, the snug little sum of eight hundred thousand dollars. Now, granting all that "the undersigned" claims when he says the Republicans found this surplus of over half a million in the State Treasury, to be
true, did not common justice and candor call upon himo
to acknowledge that it was, like all other "Democratic" thunder, “borrowed capital"—a fund upon which the State was compelled to pay an enormous interest, the lowest rates being seven per cent. per annum--thus making, as every intelligent man may see at a glance, this boasted surplus, really and practically a direct tax upon the people to the amount of the interest, while the money was lying
idle in the Treasury, useful only in an electioneering extremity-an idle boast that there was "plenty of cash in the State Treasury." A like policy pursued in the transaction of individual business, would subject the person pursuing it to serious imputations, and such an explanation to creditors or the public by a business man, coupled with the claim that his borrowed money should be reckoned as a portion of his bona fide capital or assets, available to his general credits, would inspire serious doubts either of honesty or sanity, and perhaps of both.
It is plain, then, that although the Democrats left a surplus in the Treasury, it was only a fictitious surplus-a surplus, each dollar of which added really a large per centage to the actual indebtedness of the State. The sum thus borrowed from the Trust Funds by the State was, as before stated, about eight hundred thousand dollars, of the principal of which near three hundred thousand dollars had been expended to pay the ordinary expenses of the State government, leaving a surplus of about five hundred thousand dollars. We have asserted that this surplus, instead of being an advantage to the State, was a detriment. To prove this, we have only to append a short statement of the receipts and expenditures of these Trust Funds for the past six years. It will be proper to remark for a full understanding of the table, that the basis upon which the loaning of these Trust Funds were established, carried with it the credits or profits of the funds, which also serves largely to increase the expenditures of the State, and adds each years' accumulating interest to the total of the sums thus loaned. It appears from the figures submitted by the majority of the committee that this species of the State indebtedness is increasing with astonishing rapidity, and it would be an absolute injustice to the Democratic party and "the undersigned," did we omit to expose this peculiarly beneficial result of their financial economy, entailed upon the State in the loaning of their Trust Funds.
The following table exhibits the receipts for interests, forfeitures, &c., on the entire proceeds of the borrowed funds which accrued to their credit during each year for the last six years, also, the interest which the State pays for the use of these Funds for the same period :
1852.. 1853,.. 1854,..
$ 71,706 40 73,353 89 120,383 31
Excess of expenditures over receipts,..$ 89,169 13
87,666 75 $127,542 61 83,333 05
146,542 26 153,011 20
$427,096 07 249,048 66
Excess of expenditures over receipts,..$178,047 11
Thus it will be seen that upon this item alone during the last six years, this "shinning" policy of the Democratic party has cost the State a direct loss of $267,216 24, or an average of $44,534 83 per annum of actual increased indebtedness upon the interest account of the Trust Funds alone!! By adding this loss on the interest fund to the principal of the Trust Funds borrowed and expended, it will be seen that this species of indebtedness entailed "in pursuance of the wise and economical policy of Governors Barry and Felch," has burdened the people of the State with a debt of over one million two hundred thousand dollars, in addition to the balance of two millions and over due upon the five million loan-thus making the bona fide indebtedness of the State something over three millions of dollars, all directly traceable to and chargable upon the reckless, short-sighted and extraordinary financial policy of this Democratic party. Is it any wonder that DIdersigned" is so totally oblivious to the real facts of our financial history, and slurs over all this important and instructive portion with the bland and flattering remark that when the Democratic party went out of power, they "left à large surplus not also in the Treasury ?" But did the leave a surplus of debts, and a never-ending legacy ling legacy of a cumulating interest, which the people will soon be called. upon to pay in the shape of a direct tax, which over
shadows that little surplus, as the towering Himmalayan peak overshadows the diminutive mole-hills at their base.
But we pass on to that portion of the "report" which alludes to the expenditures of the State Government. "The undersigned" says:
"The expenditures during those seven years of the Democratic administration were annually from $371,491 47, the lowest, in 1848, to $449,355 40, the largest, in 1850."
And here we ask careful attention to the figures of "the undersigned," and those we shall quote. The "Report" says that in 1848, the lowest year of Democratic rule, the expenditures were only $371,491 47, while the official report of the State Treasurer for that year shows the expenditures to have been $404,426 35-evidently showing a mistake in "the undersigned" of $32,934 88. The "report" also says that in 1850, the largest year of Democratic rule, the expenditures were $449,355 40, while the official figures are $449,451 54, showing a mistake of "the undersigned" to the small sum of $106 14. We adduce the figures and make the corrections, not because they are necessary to the argument we intend to pursue on this head, but simply to show how little "the undersigned" knows about arithmetic, and how utterly incompetent such Democrats are to make a fair, liberal and honest investigation, or even to tell the truth.
Much ado is made by "the undersigned" in his "report about the increased expenditures of the three years of Republican rule,.over the last three years of Democratic rule of the State. "The undersigned" estimates this excess as follows:
$175,432 48 190,523 66
Were these figures true, we should be well pleased to let them stand as they are, but we would not deal unjustly, even with "the undersigned," and hence, though probably unfortunate for the Republican party, we will correct the misstatements of the minority "report," by giving the following official figures for the expenditures of the six years mentioned:
Estimated excess of "the undersigned,"
692,799 20 596,569 93
In which the undersigned" falls short,.... $96,229 27
In this connection it is proper for us to note the extraordinary expenses which have been made during the last three years, over and above the expenditures of the like character for the three preceding years of Democratic rule, which we present in the following table:
Excess of Expenditures for 1855, '56 and '57, over the years 1852, '53 and '54, for the same items, as follows:
Total excess of expenditures for 1855, 56 and '57, over those of 1852, '53 and '54,...
Interest on State debt, funded,. $ 88,377 62 Interest on Trust Funds loaned by the State,. 88,877 98 Paid on State debt.. Compilation of the Laws,.. Building bridges and other improvements at Lansing, authorized by acts of Legislature,. Excess of appropriations to public works in 1855, '56 and '57, over same objects for 1852, '53 and '54,.. Allowances of Democratic Board of Auditors and expenses of State government in Dec. 1854, charged to fiscal year of 1855,....
Showing a decrease in the actual current expenses of the State government in the last 3 years over the preceding 3 years of...... $69,674 80 Being an actual saving to the people, in the current expenses of each of the three years of Republican administration of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND NINETY-THREE CENTS!! ($23,224 93!)
To which should be added $60,000 of interest paid upon the surplus revenue by the Republican Administration, more than was paid during the seven years of Democratic