in their proper and exact place before the country. I cannot hope to do much; but I believe I can do something. Let us see what sort of statements were the backbone and foundation of this anti-imperialist movement. Let us see what they were worth. What was its real, actual basis? Was it a solid one? I undertake to say that it was a foundation of sand, that there was not a single sound timber in its supports and that the whole case was founded upon misrepresentation, libel, deceit and falsehood. These are strong accusations; but the facts are here. In the first place, let us consider Mr. Atkinson's statements of the cost of this war in the Philippines. His pamphlets were devoted almost exclusively to proving two things; first, that the money cost of the war would lead to an enormous deficit in our treasury, and second, that the loss in lives and the suffering of our soldiers would be awful. What I propose to do is to parallel column his prophecies with the facts. CHAPTER VI ATKINSON'S RIDICULOUS FINANCE EDWARD ATKINSON'S FINANCIAL PROPHECIES PROVEN RIDICULOUS AND FULL OF MISSTATEMENTS HERE is Mr. Atkinson's record in his own books, and he and we must stand by the results here shown. Here is Vol. 1 of the "Anti-Imperialist.” On p. 8 is this heading in large type. PROSPECTIVE DEFICIT IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1900, $150,000,000, probably more. 66 BY EDWARD ATKINSON. Now what is the fact? What was the deficit 'IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1900?" "A DEFICIT OF $150,000,000, probably more" he puts it, in italics. Now let us go to the fountain head on this matter. Here is the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Lyman J. Gage, on the state of the finances for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900. On page vii we find this: 66 66 Treasury Department, "Sir: (To the Speaker of the House of Representatives) I have the honor to submit the following report. "Receipts and Expenditures. 66 Fiscal Year, 1900. "The revenues of the government from all sources for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900, were: Total receipts, $567,000,000, total expenditures $488,000,000, showing a surplus of $79,000,000." (Postal service items are left out of Mr. Atkinson's calculations and, therefore out of all calculations herein, as well. Also all amounts, as a rule, are made into even millions by dropping all except the millions of the exact figures.) Mr. Atkin son says in large type and italics, "PROSPECTIVE DEFICIT IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1900: -$150,000,000,-probably more." That is, Mr. Atkinson was $229,000,000 out of the way! He said a deficit of $150,000,000; we had a surplus of $79,000,000 and he was the sum of those two from the correct figures,-$229,000,000,-nearly half of all our expenditures for the whole year, which were only $488,000,000; if he had been $15,000,000 more wrong he would have made an error exactly equal to one half our total expenditures for the year;—one half of all our expenditures being $244,000,000; and he was wrong $229,000,000! Now let us take his next statement; "In respect to revenue, if the sovereignty of the United States is extended over the Philippine Islands, Porto Rico and Cuba, the expected customs revenue computed by the Secretary of the Treasury at $205,000,000 will be diminished by about $75,000,000; for reasons which will be subsequently given." (That is, they will be only $130,000,000.) Now what is the fact? He says that they will be $130,000,000 only. The 1900 report of the secretary of the treasury, p. vii., 2d item, says "received from customs, $233,000,000." Mr. Atkinson said $130,000,000; we received $233,000,000; on this single item, then, Mr. Atkinson is wrong $103,000, In the very next paragraph of this pamphlet, Mr. Atkinson says: "The army and navy estimates appear to be very inadequate. For reasons hereafter given it is probable that the expenditures must be increased to about eight dollars per head, or from $540,000,000 to $624,000,000." Now let us examine that statement. In the first place he says "the army and navy estimates appear to be very inadequate." Now let us see about that. What were the army and navy estimates. Here they are, army, $190,000,000; navy, $47,000,000. Mr. Gage says in his report that the actual figure of expenditures for that year were, army, $134,000,000, (Mr. Gage's estimate was $190,000,000) and navy, $55,000,000 (and his estimate was $47,000,000); that is, the estimates of the secretary called for a total of $237,000,000,-his expenses were $189,000,000 (or $48,000,000 less than he had requested be placed at his disposition by Congress) and Mr. Atkinson calls these estimates "very inadequate " when they were really $48,000,000 more than was needed. In the statement just made, Mr. Atkinson says it is probable that the expenditures will be $624,000,000. Now what is the fact? How near does. he come this time? Take up the report of the secretary of the treasury and what do we find, bottom of p. vii? "Total expenditures, $488,000,000," —that is, Mr. Atkinson was $136,000,000 out of the way. In the succeeding sentence (p. 9 of the pamphlet) Mr. Atkinson says, "The probable de |
