But, say, the view from this elevation1 is mighty2 interesting. The mobilization of the United States soldiery far to the Southwest; the breaking up of corrals and herds3 to the West; the starting of activities about mining camps in the West and Northwest; the lumber4 jacks5 and teams in the spruce forests of the north are indeed inspiring things to look upon; and over the eastern horizon, there in the lumber sections of New England and to the Southeast, in the soft maple6, the cottonwood and basswood districts, the people appear to be industriously7 and happily active; away to the South——
Say! What’s that excitement over there at Washington, D. C.?
“Hello, Central! Hello! Yes, this is The Man on the Ladder.”
“Get me Washington, D. C., on the L.-D. in a hurry—and get Congressman8 Blank on that end of the wire. The House is in session, and certainly he ought to be found in not more than five minutes.”
It is something unusually gratifying to see that activity about that sleepy group of capitol buildings—the “House of Dollars,” the house of the hoi polloi, and the White House—a scene that will linger in the freshness and fragrance9 of my remembrance until the faculty10 of memory fades away. There are messengers and pages flitting about from house to house as if the prairies were afire behind them. Excited Congressmen are in heated discourse11 on the esplanade, on the capitol steps and in the corridors and cloak rooms. And there are numerous groups of Senators, each a kingly specimen12 of what might be a real man if there was not so much pickled dignity[10] oozing13 from his stilted14 countenance15 and pose. There now go four of them to the White House, probably to see the President, our smiling William. I wonder what they are after. I wonder——
“Yes, yes! Hello! Is that you, Congressman Jim?” “Yes? What can I do for you?”
“Well, this is The Man on the Ladder, Jim, and I want to know in the name of heaven—any other spot you can think of quickly will do as well—what’s the occasion and cause for all that external excitement and activity I see around the capitol building? There must be a superthermic atmosphere inside both the Senate and House to drive so many of our statesmen to the open air and jolt16 them into a quickstep in their movements. Now go on and tell, and tell me straight.”
Well, Well! If I did not know my Congressman friend so well, I would scarcely be persuaded to believe what he has just phoned me.
It appears that a conspiracy17—yes, I mean just that—a conspiracy has been entered into between our Chief Executive, a coterie18 of Senators, possibly a Congressman or two and a numerous gang of corporate19 and vested interests, cappers and beneficiaries, to penalize20 various independent weekly and monthly periodicals. Penalize is what I said. But that word is by no means strong enough. The intent of the conspirators21 was—and is—to put certain periodicals out of business and to establish a press censorship in the person of the Postmaster General as will enable him to put any periodical out of existence which does not print what it is told to publish.
It would seem that when the Postoffice appropriation22 bill left the House, where all revenue measures must originate, it was a fairly clean bill, carrying some $258,000,000 of the people’s money for the legitimate23 service of the people. Of course it carried many service excesses, just as it has carried in each of the past thirty or forty years, and several of those looting excesses so conspicuous24 in every one of the immediately past fifteen years.
But otherwise, it may be stated, the House approval carried this bill to the Senate in its usual normal cleanliness. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, the members of which, after conference with the President, annexed25 to it an alleged26 revenue-producing “rider.”
[11]
This rider I will later on discuss for the information of my readers. Here I desire only to call the reader’s attention to the fact that under the Constitution of the United States the United States Senate has no more right or authority to originate legislation for producing federal revenues than has the Hamilton Club of Chicago or the Golf Club at Possum Run, Kentucky. But the conspirators—I still use the milder term, though I feel like telling the truth, which could be expressed only by some term that would class their action as that of assassinating27 education in this country. These conspirators, I say, did not hesitate to exceed and violate their constitutional obligations and prerogatives28. They added a revenue-producing “rider” to House resolution 31,539. The rider was to raise certain kinds of second-class matter from a one-cent per pound rate to a four-cent per pound rate. Not only that, but they managed to induce Postmaster General Hitchcock to push into the Senate several ulterior motive29 reports and letters to boost the outlawry30 to successful passage. But, more of this later.
My friend Congressman Jim has just informed me that the conspirators were beginning to fear their ability even to get their “rider” to the post for a start; that many members and representatives of the Periodical Press Association of New York City, as well as those of other branches of the printing industry, hearing of the attempt to put this confiscatory32 rider over in the closing hours—the crooked33 hours—of Congress, hurried to Washington and sought to inform Senators and members of the House of the truth about second-class mail matter. Congressman Jim also informed me that a delegation34 representing the publishing interests of Chicago had arrived a few hours before and were scarcely on the ground before “things began to happen.” “People talk about Chicagoans making a noise,” said Jim in his L.-D. message, “but when it comes to doing things you can count on them to go to it suddenly, squarely and effectively. That delegation is one of the causes of the excitement which you notice here. Good-by.”
Friend Jim, being a Chicago boy, may be pardoned even when a little profuse35 or over-confident in speaking of what his townsmen can do, but Congressman Jim is a live-wire Congressman, and has been able to do several things himself while on his legislative36 job, even against stacked-up opposition38.
While reporting on Congressman Jim’s message from Washington,[12] I phoned the leading features to the office and have just received peremptory39 orders to write up not only this attempt but other attempts to raid the postal40 revenues of the country by means of crooked riders and otherwise. So there is nothing to do but go to it.
Incidentally, my editor, knowing my tendency to write with a club, cautions me to adopt the dignified41 style of composition while writing upon this subject. I assure my readers that I shall be as dignified as the heritage of my nature will allow and the subject warrants. If I occasionally fall from the expected dignified altitude I trust the reader will be indulgent, will charge the fault, in part at least, to my remote Alsatian ancestor. He fought with a club. I have therefore an inherited tendency to write (fight), with a club. So here goes.
In opening on this important subject, for vastly important it is from whatever angle one views it, I wish first to speak of the governmental postoffice department and then of Postmaster Generals.
First I will say that this government has not had, at least within the range of my mature recollection, any business management of its postoffice department above the level of that given to Reuben’s country store of Reubenville, Arkansas.
The second fact I desire to put forward is that since the days of Benjamin Franklin there have been but few, a possible three or four, Postmaster Generals who had any qualifications whatsoever42, business or other, to direct the management of so large a business as that comprehended in the federal postal service. Not only are the chiefs, the Postmaster Generals, largely or wholly lacking in business and executive ability to manage so large an industrial and public service, but their chosen assistants (Second, Third and on up to the Fourth or Fifth “Assistant Postmaster Generals”), have been and are likewise lacking in most or all of the essential qualifications fundamentally necessary to the management and direction of large industrial or service business enterprises. I venture to say that none of them have read, and few of them even heard of, the splendid book written by Mr. Frederick W. Taylor explaining, really giving the A, B, C of the “Science of Business Management,” which for several years has been so beneficial in the business and industrial methods in this country as almost to have worked an economic revolution. I equally doubt if they have even read the series of articles in one of the monthly[13] periodicals, which Postmaster General Hitchcock and his coterie of conspirators tried to stab in the back with that Senate “rider” on the postoffice appropriation bill. Yet Mr. Taylor wrote these articles, and Mr. Taylor must know a great deal about economic, scientific business management. He must know, otherwise the Steel Corporation, the great packing concerns, several railroads, the Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, the Link Belt Company and a number of other large concerns, as well as the trained editors of several engineering and industrial journals, would not have so generally, likewise profitably, adopted and approved his recommendations and directions.
Yet while most of these “Assistant Postmaster Generals” and their subassistants have been glaringly—yes, discouragingly—incompetent44 to manage and direct the work of their divisions, some of them have shown an elegance45 of aptitude46, a finished adroitness47 in using their official positions to misappropriate, likewise to appropriate to their own coffers, the funds and revenues of the Postoffice Department. Reference needs only to be made to the grace and deftness48 displayed by August W. Machen, George W. Beavers49 and their copartners. The one was Superintendent51 of Free Delivery, the other Superintendent of Salaries and Allowances, and the way they, for several years, made the postoffice funds and revenues “come across” beat any get-rich-quick concern about forty rods in any mile heat that was reported in the sporting columns of the daily press.
General Leonard Wood, Congressman Loud and a few other reputable officials induced President Roosevelt to institute an investigation52. The investigation was made under the direction of Joseph L. Bristow. Then things were uncovered; that is, some things were uncovered. In speaking of the nastiness disclosed William Allen White in 1904 wrote, in part, as follows:
“Most of the Congressmen knew there was something wrong in Beaver50’s department; and Beaver knew of their suspicions; so Congressmen generally got from him what they went after, and the crookedness53 thrived.
“When it was stopped by President Roosevelt, this crookedness was so far-reaching that when a citizen went to the postoffice to buy a stamp the cash register which gave him his change was full of graft54, the ink used in canceling the stamp was full of graft, the pad which furnished the ink was full of graft, the clock which kept the clerk’s[14] time was full of graft, the carrier’s satchel55 tie-straps56, his shoulder straps, and his badge were subject to illegal taxation57, the money order blanks were full of graft, the letter boxes on the street were fraudulently painted, fraudulently fastened to the posts, fraudulently made, and equipped—many of them with fraudulent time-indicators. Often the salaries of the clerks were full of graft. And in the case of hundreds of thousands of swindling letters and advertisements that were dropped in the box—they were full of graft.”
We will now get down to the present Postmaster General, Mr. Frank H. Hitchcock. I have read, and shall later print in this volume the Senate “rider” to the postoffice department appropriation bill, which, so far as The Man on the Ladder has been able to learn, Mr. Hitchcock either wrote or “steered” in its writing. I have also read his series of letters to Senator Penrose, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads; also his 1910 report. At this point I shall make my comment on Postmaster General Hitchcock brief but, mayhap, somewhat pointed58.
Most Postmaster Generals for the past thirty or more years have been incompetent. There have been a few notable and worthy59 exceptions, but their worthiness60 was almost completely lost in the department by reason of previously61 planted corruption63 and political interference. Most Postmaster Generals, as has been stated, have had little or no qualification for the management and administration of so large a service industry as that covered by the federal postoffice department.
Mr. Hitchcock, in his administration of the department, in his reports and recent letters to the Senate and the House, has shown himself scarcely up to the average of his incompetent predecessors64.
Mr. Hitchcock’s “rider” to the 1911 postoffice appropriation bill and his recent letters to Senator Penrose and others will convince any fair-minded, informed reader that he is either an “influenced” man or is densely65 ignorant. I wish to make this point emphatic66: The careless, loose, hurried—yes, even silly—wording of that “rider” and the false and foolish statements in his letters to Senator Penrose, relating to his demand for an increase of three cents a pound on certain periodicals now carried in the mails as second-class matter at one cent a pound, he to be given authority to pick out and designate the periodicals which should be subject to the increased rate—his false[15] and foolish statements in that “rider,” and in his recent letters, I say, must show to any intelligent mind that Mr. Hitchcock is either an “influenced” man or a six-cylinder, chain-tired, hill-climber of an ignoramus in matters relating to periodical publication, and also in many essential matters relating to his department.
My previous statements regarding the government’s postoffice department, about Postmaster Generals in general and about Mr. Hitchcock in particular, may not be up to the broadcloth of dignity, but they do carry the dignity of fact and truth, as I shall proceed to demonstrate to my readers.
Let us consider first the government postoffice department and then Mr. Hitchcock’s recent actions and utterances67.
Most of the Postmaster Generals, including Mr. Hitchcock, appear to have been greatly exercised about “deficits,” yet persist in pursuing methods of business management and direction that must, almost necessarily, make expenditures69 of the department exceed its receipts.
Also I may ask, in this connection, why so much agony, or “front,” whichever it may be, about a “deficit68” in the Postoffice Department? The postal service of the country is a public service, a service of all the people. As such the revenues of the federal postoffice department should not be permitted to exceed the actual cost of the service rendered under honest, economical and competent management and direction.
The departments of war and the navy produce no revenue save the comparatively speaking trifling70 sums received from the sale of junk, abandoned equipment, accoutrements, etc. These departments render personal or direct service to but a small fraction of the vast number of people served by the postoffice department. Almost the entire appropriation for war and the navy in the past forty-five years might be called a “deficit” so far as any service they have rendered to the great body of the Nation’s citizenship71 is concerned. Yet in the face of all this, so loosely, carelessly and crookedly72 have the departments of war and of the navy been managed that there is scarcely a session of Congress which is not appealed to for huge sums of money to cover “deficits,” to meet extravagant73, wasteful74 and, not infrequently, fraudulent expenditures in excess of the vast sums set aside for them in their annual appropriation bills.
[16]
A few years since it was found that the navy department was employing more clerks than it employed service men.
As to these strictures on the Postoffice Department, I will here quote for the benefit of readers who may not have studied this postal service question, a few authorities on the subject under consideration.
A few years ago the methods and abuses of the federal Postoffice Department were investigated by a joint75 commission of Congress. One paragraph of the commission’s report reads as follows and must be regarded as officially significant:
“It appears too obvious to require argument that the most efficient service can never be expected as long as the direction of the business is, as at present, intrusted to a Postmaster General and certain assistants selected without special reference to experience and qualifications and subject to frequent change. Under such a system a large railroad, commercial or industrial business would inevitably76 go into bankruptcy77 and the postoffice department has averted78 that fate only because the United States Treasury79 has been able to meet deficiencies.”
Pretty plain, straight talk that, is it not?
The resolution to appoint a commission of three members and appropriate $50,000 for the commission’s use was tacked37 onto the postoffice appropriation bill after the Senate “rider” was ditched. That resolution was under discussion in the House March 3rd (1911)—the usual swan-song day for those who failed to “arrive” at the November election. Mr. Weeks, chairman of the House Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, led the discussion. The discussion was participated in by several Congressmen, among whom was Congressman Moon of Tennessee. Judge Moon is recognized as one of the best informed men in Congress on postal matters, and particularly informed as to present methods of transporting and handling second-class mail. Mr. Moon, though a member of the conference committee which had just agreed to the bill, Senate resolution and all, as amended80 in conference, quite vigorously opposed the appropriation of $50,000 of the people’s money for a “Commission” to investigate the cost of transporting and handling second-class mail matter. He based his opposition largely on the fact that two or three previous commissions had been appointed to investigate the same question or matter; that these previous commissions had gone into the subject thoroughly,[17] had collected every scrap81 of information that, under the present methods, or lack of method, in the postoffice department, it was or is possible to collect; that these commissions had spent hundreds of thousands of the people’s money; that they had made complete and exhaustive reports covering all the information obtained or obtainable; that these reports are on file and easily accessible, and that the postal committees of neither Senate nor House had given any attention or consideration to those reports.
From the many trenchant82 things said by Mr. Moon I take the following:
“If the gentleman will excuse me a minute, I am trying to get to another reason which I want to present to the House as to why I deem it inappropriate and unwise to pass this legislation. Now, when the experts undertake to determine just exactly what ought to be paid for the carrying of the magazines, how the government ought to be remunerated for the carrying and handling of these magazines, or other second-class matter, they are bound to take as the basis of the investigation the manner in which the second-class matter is now handled and the manner in which it is paid for. In other words, the basis of weighing and the computation of paying are the basic facts upon which they must rely in order to determine the question. I undertake to say to this House deliberately83, that in view of our method of weighing and of the computation of railway mail pay, that no expert on the face of this earth can today come within fifteen or twenty millions of dollars of what the compensation ought to be for the transportation of second-class mail.
“If every fact has been adduced that would lead to a proper conclusion as to what the pay ought to be, if we are to go again over the same field of investigation with no possibility of any more light, tell me what sense there is in expending84 the public money for that purpose? And, then the very minute you undertake to reach the correct result you are confronted with a proposition that you cannot justly charge the cost of transportation and handling to a class of matter flatly that in itself produces a return to the government in another class of matter, probably in excess of the charges of transportation and handling of that matter itself—the second class. How are you to draw the lines for the determination of these questions? You are in[18] the dark; it is a chaotic85 proposition, considering the method by which it must be determined86 today.”
I take it, that however much they may differ from him in his political and economic views, readers recognize in William Randolph Hearst one of the most alert and best informed men in this country on the subject of publishing and distributing periodical literature. He certainly ranks among the largest, if he is not indeed the largest, publisher and distributer of newspapers and other periodical prints there is in this country,—yes, I may say, in the world.
On February 24, 1911, a letter over Mr. Hearst’s signature appeared in the Washington Post. In this communication he touches upon the efficiency—rather the inefficiency87—of the Postoffice Department in handling the postal service of this country. I would like to reproduce the letter entire, but cannot. I will, however, reprint some of its cogent88 statements which bear largely upon the point under consideration. Mr. Hearst says:
I know something about the cost of distribution of publications. I know something about the reasons for the excessive cost of distribution of the postoffice. And I say that the high cost of distribution in the postoffice is largely due to loose and careless and reckless methods, to antiquated89 systems and incompetent management.
It is estimated that 40 per cent of the charged weight of mail matter is composed of cumbersome90 mail bags and their heavy iron locks and fastenings.
How absurd to imagine that a man who wanted to break into a mail bag would be deterred91 by a ponderous92 lock.
The postoffice department might as well insist that a burglar-proof lock be affixed93 to every letter, under the inane94 impression that the only way to tear open a letter would be to pick a lock.
I know, too, personally and positively95, of an instance where the great mass of western mail was sent over one railroad and when the bulk of it was transferred to another railroad, all the postal clerks previously employed were maintained on the first railroad for over two years after the mail had been transferred.
The Evening Journal, without any of the powers of the great United States government behind it, distributes its product for seven-tenths of a cent a pound, and included in this average is the 1-cent-a-pound rate paid to the government for copies mailed. Obviously, then, the proportion of the product which is not carried by the postoffice is delivered for much less than seven-tenths of a cent per pound.
The New York American distributes by mail and express 303,584 pounds of daily and Sunday papers every week at a cost of $1,655.17, or little over one-half a cent per pound. This average includes 28,028 pounds sent by mail at 1[19] cent per pound, so, obviously, the average of matter not distributed by mail is less than one-half a cent per pound.
The New York American sends 67,268 pounds of these papers over the Pennsylvania Railroad at one-fourth of a cent per pound, or one-fourth the rate paid to the United States postoffice department.
That same rate—one-fourth of a cent per pound—is exactly the rate charged by the Canadian Government for carrying magazines by mail through its postoffice department and for distributing them over a thinly populated territory even greater than the United States.
How absurd, then, to assert that the government cannot distribute the magazines profitably at this present rate when it handles the magazines along with all other mail distributed and without any particular extra expense because of them.
Even if, as I said, the government were handling the magazines at a loss, it would be doing a creditable thing. But it is not handling the magazines at a loss. It is carrying them at a profit, and if it taxes the magazines out of existence it will compel the postal department to be conducted at a greater loss than the loss at which it is now conducted.
What inconsistency, too, for the administration to advocate a government subsidy96 to restore a United States merchant marine97 and at the same time advocate a measure to put out of existence a much more important American institution.
If it is a Republican policy to promote business and encourage industry, and a proper Republican and American policy to take money out of the United States Treasury to subsidize a private business in order to create an industry, why is it not a proper Republican and American policy to continue to provide a cheap mail rate in order to maintain a great American industry and perpetuate98 a mighty educational influence already existent?
The evidence in support of my impeachment99 of the Postoffice Department on account of its almost total lack of business method, its absolute helplessness to tell, even with approximate accuracy, the loss of any division of its service, or the revenues resulting from any given source or class of mail carried, would not be complete without quoting Senator Penrose and former Senator Carter.
Senator Penrose of Pennsylvania is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, and former Senator Carter was conceded to be one of the well informed men on postal matters in Congress.
The excerpt100 from Senator Penrose is from an address he made on the floor of the Senate, within the year, when speaking to the subject of second-class mail rates, and that from Mr. Carter is from his address on the same subject made in March, 1910. Both follow:
[20]
It is idle to take up such questions as apportioning101 the cost for carrying second-class mail matter or the proper compensation of railroads for transporting the mails until we shall have established business methods in postoffice affairs by a reorganization of the whole postal system.—Senator Penrose.
I deeply sympathize with the earnest desire of the department officials to get rid of the deficiency they are fated to encounter every year, but I submit that the first real movement toward that end must begin with the substitution of a modern, up-to-date business organization for the existing antiquated system.—Senator Carter.
Comment on the plain, blunt statements of these members of our highest legislative body, each admittedly well informed on the subject to which he speaks, is quite unnecessary.
In closing this division of my subject I desire to quote President Taft; quote from his message to Congress under date of March 3, 1911. It is an illuminating102 message and forcefully pertinent104 to the point we are considering. I would like to reprint the entire document, but fear I cannot do so. Of course, President Taft’s strictures and adverse105 criticisms are general—since they apply to all governmental departments—but every official in Washington knows, and none better than the President himself, that they have both adhesive106 and cohesive107 qualities when applied108 to the postoffice department.
In this message the President asks for an appropriation of $75,000 to continue the work he has already begun, that of revising departmental methods of doing business and of instituting a practical, commonsense109 system of accounting110 under which, or from which, it will be possible for administrative111 and legislative officials to learn, approximately at least, just what departments have done—to any date—and just what it has cost to do it, two items of information as appears from the message of the Chief Executive which neither his nor any previous administration has ever been able to learn, and is not now able to learn with any considerable degree of dependable accuracy.
As yet I have not learned whether the President obtained the $75,000 asked for. I hope he did. If Congress will appropriate $750,000 for the purpose the President names in his message, and sees to it that the money is judiciously112 and intelligently disbursed113, it is the opinion of The Man on the Ladder that not less than $100,000,000 annually114 would be saved in government expenditures, or one hundred millions more of service, material, equipment, etc., delivered for the money now expended115.
[21]
Following is the essential part of the President’s message. The italics are the writer’s:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I ask that you include in the sundry116 civil bill an appropriation for $75,000 and a reappropriation of the unexpended balance of the existing appropriation to enable me to continue my investigation by members of the departments and by experts of the business methods now employed by the government, with a view to securing greater economy and efficiency in the dispatch of government business.
The chief difficulty in securing economy and reform is the lack of accurate information as to what the money of the government is now spent for. Take the combined statement of the receipts and disbursements of the government for the fiscal118 year ended June 30, 1910—a report required by law, and the only one purporting119 to give an analytical120 separation of the expenditures of the government. This shows that the expenditures for salaries for the year 1910 were $132,000,000 out of $950,000,000. As a matter of fact, the expenditures for personal services during that year were more nearly $400,000,000, as we have just learned by the inquiry121 now in progress under the authority given me by the last congress.
The only balance sheet provided to the administrator122 or to the legislator as a basis for judgment123 is one which leaves out of consideration all assets other than cash, and all liabilities other than warrants outstanding, a part of the trust liabilities and the public debt. In the liabilities no mention is made of about $70,000,000 special and trust funds so held. No mention is made of outstanding contracts and orders issued as incumbrances on appropriations124; of invoices125 which have not been vouchered; of vouchers126 which have not been audited127. It is, therefore, impossible for the administrator to have in mind the maturing obligations to meet which cash must be provided; there is no means for determining the relation of current surplus or deficit. No operation account is kept, and no statement of operations is rendered showing the expenses incurred—the actual cost of doing business—on the one side, and the revenues accrued128 on the other. There are no records showing the cost of land, structures, equipment, or the balance of stores on hand available for future use; there is no information coming regularly to the administrative head of the government or his advisers129 advising them as to whether sinking-fund requirements have been met, or of the condition of trust funds or special funds.
It has been urged that such information as is above indicated could not be obtained, for the reason that the accounts were on a cash basis; that they provide for reports of receipts and disbursements only. But even the accounts and reports of receipts and disbursements are on a basis which makes a true statement of facts impossible. For example: All of the trust receipts and disbursements of the government, other than those relating to currency trusts, are reported as “ordinary receipts and disbursements.” The daily, as well as the monthly and annual statements of disbursements, are mainly made up from advances to disbursing130 officers—that is to say, when cash is transferred from one officer to another it is considered as spent, and the disbursement117 accounts and reports of the government so show them. The only other accounts of expenditures on the books of[22] the Treasury are based on audited settlements most of which are months in arrears131 of actual transactions; as between the record of cash advanced to disbursing officers and the accounts showing audited vouchers, there is a current difference of from $400,000,000 to $700,000,000, representing vouchers which have not been audited and settled.
Without going into greater detail, the conditions under which legislators and administrators132, both past and present, have been working may be summarized as follows: There have been no adequate means provided whereby either the President or his advisers may act with intelligence on current business before them; there has been no means for getting prompt, accurate and correct information as to results obtained; estimates of departmental needs have not been the subject of thorough analysis and review before submission133; budgets of receipts and disbursements have been prepared and presented for the consideration of Congress in an unscientific and unsystematic manner; appropriation bills have been without uniformity or common principle governing them; there have been practically no accounts showing what the government owns, and only a partial representation of what it owes; appropriations have been overencumbered without the facts being known; officers of government have had no regular or systematic134 method of having brought to their attention the costs of governmental administration, operation and maintenance, and therefore could not judge as to the economy or waste; there has been inadequate135 means whereby those who served with fidelity136 and efficiency might make a record of accomplishment137 and be distinguished138 from those who were inefficient139 and wasteful; functions and establishments have been duplicated, even multiplied, causing conflict and unnecessary expense; lack of full information has made intelligent direction impossible and co-operation between different branches of the service difficult.
I am bringing to your attention this statement of the present lack of facility for obtaining prompt, complete, and accurate information in order that congress may be advised of the conditions which the President’s inquiry into economy and efficiency has found and which the administration is seeking to remedy. Investigations140 of administrative departments by congress have been many, each with the same result. All the conditions above set forth141 have been repeatedly pointed out. Some benefits have accrued by centering public attention on defects in organization, method, and procedure, but generally speaking, however salutary the influence of legislative inquiries142 (and they should at all times be welcome), the installation and execution of methods and procedure, which will place a premium143 on economy and efficiency and a discount on inefficiency and waste must be carefully worked out and introduced by those responsible for the details of administration.
Does that broad accusation144 of the President approve or disapprove145 our previously expressed opinion of governmental department service in general and of the postoffice department in particular? Notice the statements I have taken the liberty to italicize. Permit me to repeat a few of them:
“The chief difficulty in securing economy and reform is the lack of accurate information as to what the money of the government is spent for.”
[23]
Does not that fully103 bear out what Judge Moon said in discussing the Senate resolution to appropriate $50,000 more for a second-class mail commission—devote fifty thousand more after the government had already spent several hundred thousands delving146 into the same subject and got little or nothing of value, by reason of the loose, careless and wasteful methods of the federal postal department?
… “There is no means for determining the relation of current surplus or deficit.”
An inviting147 business situation that, is it not? Especially “inviting” is it to officials and subordinates who want something they have not earned, who want to find something.
“No operation account is kept, and no statement of operations is rendered showing the expenses incurred—the actual cost of doing business—the actual cost of doing business on the one side and the revenues accrued on the other.”
Now, my dear reader, don’t you know that such a method or system, or lack of method or system, would put a western corn farm in “financial distress” the first season and out of business the second? A cattle ranch31, handled on such loose, ignorant methods would be sold out in a year. What, in reduction, does this unqualified statement of our President mean?
It means that the heads of governmental departments do not know; that their subordinates do not know, and, therefore, our President, our Senators and our Congressmen do not know. Nor can they, under existing conditions and methods, find out. They cannot find out even the common—the basic—essentials of business methods and management which Job Fraser, down in “Egypt,” must know in order to keep his hen range out of bankruptcy.
Do you remember a quotation148, some pages back, from the joint commission which investigated the postoffice department? The investigation which rummaged149 into the second-class mail schedule particularly? If you do not remember, turn back and read it again. It fits like the skin of an Alberta peach to what the President has just said (March 3, 1911), in his message from which we have quoted.
While collecting millions of revenue beyond all possible expenditures, under competent, honest management, our federal postoffice department would have gone into bankruptcy save for the backing of the government’s treasury—for the backing of your money.
[24]
“The only other accounts of expenditures on the books of the treasury are based on audited settlements, most of which are months in arrears of actual transactions; as between the record of cash advanced to disbursing officers and the accounts showing audited vouchers, there is a current difference of from $400,000,000 to $700,000,000, representing vouchers which have not been audited and settled.”
Of course, I do not know how that may strike the reader. It strikes the writer, however, as being about as near the limit as any individual or corporation could go without falling over the financial edge and nearer the limit than any sensible, well and honestly directed government should go.
Again—No, I will requote no more. Turn back and read the quotation from the President’s message again. Read carefully, and then read it once more. Any citizen, whose mental tires are not punctured150 will be not only a wiser but a bigger and better citizen for having done so.
It was my intention to close this division of my subject with the excerpts151 from President Taft’s message. My attention however was called to a move made by Postmaster General Hitchcock, and an interview had with him bearing on said move. It was taken note of and “spaced” by a majority of the newspapers having general circulation in the United States. What I shall here quote is taken from a Chicago paper of date April 1, and the “write-up,” nearly a column, is based, it is probable, on a wire to the journal either from its Washington correspondent or a news agency. As the article appeared in so many newspapers I take it that the information conveyed is entirely152 dependable.
From the write-up it appears that Postmaster General Hitchcock has made “a round dozen” of changes among the postal officials in the railway mail service. Some of the changes were promotions—on the government’s pay roll—changes of division superintendents153 from one division to another, shifting of division chief clerks and of division inspectors154, etc., etc. Theodore Ingalls, formerly155 superintendent of “rural mails,” is now superintendent of the “railway mail service,” succeeding Alexander Grant, who, the friendly space writer says, “is one of the most widely known postoffice officials in the service.” Whether favorably or unfavorably known, the write-up sayeth not. At any rate, Mr. Grant goes to the St. Paul division of[25] the railway mail service at $1,000 per year less than he formerly drew from the postoffice department funds. Per contra, Mr. Ingalls steps from “rurals” to railway mails at an increase of $1,000. The other “round dozen” changes are of similar character, though affecting positions subordinate or minor156 to the ones named. No dismissals, just shifting the official pegs157 around, possibly for the “good of the service,” as Mr. Hitchcock says; possibly for other reasons. It is to be hoped that Postmaster General Hitchcock stated the entire truth and that these changes are for the good of the service. The railway mail service is certainly in dire43 need of betterment, as the reader will learn before I finish, if he but has the interest and the patience to follow me to the end.
Why Mr. Hitchcock did not make some twelve hundred changes in the railway mail service instead of a “round dozen,”—and many of them dismissals—I do not know. Perhaps Mr. Hitchcock does know. Let us hope he does and be thankful for small favors. Many people, however, who have watched the Postoffice Department’s maneuverings during the past forty years have seen too many “Sunday Editions” put to mail to be fooled by any of this “shake-up” talk. This shifting of the official shoats from one pen to another, still leaving them with their noses and four feet in the trough, is a too common and well known practice in the police and other public safety departments of our larger cities to fool anybody who has had his eyes open since the first full moon in April, 1868.
Shake-ups which do not retire incompetent or “faulted” public officials and servants, just as a “faulted” casting is rejected at “milling,” is not a “shake-up” that will stand good in any strata158 of human intelligence above that found in asylums159 for broken-down cerebral160 equipment. It is betterments, not “shake-ups,” that are needed.
The reader will please understand that there is no personal animus161 in what I here—or elsewhere—write. I have not had the pleasure, and possibly the honor, of personal acquaintance with Mr. Ingalls, Mr. Grant and others of the “round dozen” involved in the Postmaster General’s “shake-up.” They are probably all fine gentlemen personally, whom it would be a privilege to meet and to know. But we are writing to a subject infinitely162 larger than any man or set of men.
[26]
The people of this country are “up against” a postal service proposition—a proposition so stupendous in import, so far-reaching in its application, so crucial in its effects upon us and the children who follow us, and involving service so incompetent, so wasteful, so corrupt62 in its management and operation as to have appalled163 those of us who have watched and studied its practices, and to have become a joke, provoking a smile or laugh among postal officials of other nations who render a service that serves.
For upward of forty years—a few bright spots excepted—our Postoffice Department has shown itself not only incompetent in the matter of business management, but disregardful in serving the people who pay for the service. I am aware this is a bald statement, a “mere assertion,” some postoffice official or sinecure164 postal “servant” may say, but it will have to be said more often, more carefully and studiedly and far more eloquently165, in order to have it believed outside the family circle than it ever has heretofore been said to get the people of this country to stand for it.
In the “write-up” annexed to Postmaster General Hitchcock’s few paragraphs of interview, the “space” artist gives us, in epitome166, the biography of the men Mr. Hitchcock promotes and demotes in that “round dozen” of changes. Some of my readers may have scanned the “booster” newspaper stuff of which I am writing. If so, much of what I have here said may be bricks or straw, just as it may happen that they know or do not know the true “innards” of the service status of this Postoffice Department of ours. I will not do more here than to point to the epitome biographical sketches167 of the promotes and demotes in the friendly “write-up.”
In substance it says that Mr. Ingalls “is a highly trained postal official” and “entirely familiar with the railway mail system, having begun his postal work in that service.”
Now, we all sincerely hope that is true. I once ran a sawmill, but, candidly168, I do not believe that any sensible business man would hire me today to run his saws in any mill turning out mixed cuts. It may be that Mr. Ingalls has accumulated just the proper, and the proper amount of, information in superintending “rurals” to enable—to qualify—him to manage and direct that case-hardened, looting division known as the Railway Mail Service. Let us hope that he knows how to do it.
[27]
In the past twenty-five or thirty years it has been conclusively169 shown that the postoffice department, en tout170, knows about as much concerning the railroad end of the railway mail service as a mongrel spitz poodle knows of astronomy.
So I might comment on other names mentioned in the write-up of this “shake-up” of our Postmaster General. They have all been good men. Possibly they each and all are good men yet—for the jobs to which the Postmaster General has promoted or demoted them. The people may appreciate and even honor Jim Jones because he “worked his way up” from mail carrier on a rural route at Rabbit Hash, Mississippi, to Superintendent of the Cincinnati Division or the St. Paul Division of the railway mail service, and even more so, if he got stilted to the position of “Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service.” Still, listen. While we, the people, at Rabbit Hash, Mississippi, may be entirely satisfied to see our boy, Jim Jones, move up the ladder to official honor and salary, how about you other 93,760,000 people? You want prompt, cheap service in the railway mail and our Jim Jones fails to give it to you,—fails when you know the conditions and the facilities are at call and command to give it to you.
What is the answer? Simply that you 93,760,000 other folks may not think so well of our Jim Jones’ railway mail service ability—or business ability—as we of Rabbit Hash may think.
Now I have said enough about Postmaster General Hitchcock’s “shake-up.” What I have not said the intelligent reader will readily infer—and there is a whole lot to be inferred.
At the outset I intended to quote Mr. Hitchcock—quote Mr. Hitchcock himself—in evidence or proof of my previously made and repeated statement, that the Postoffice Department is incompetently171, is wastefully172, if not crookedly, managed and directed.
I am now going to quote Mr. Hitchcock. Of course, he here speaks of only the railway mail service. It is admittedly one of the worst divisions for waste and steal. But there are others scarcely a neck behind.
The subjoined dispatch states (March 31, 1911), that “while signing the orders necessary for the changes Mr. Hitchcock said:”
[28]
The investigation which we conducted so long and so carefully indicated clearly that the action which I have taken was absolutely necessary. The railway mail service has suffered greatly from poor management and lack of supervision173.
In certain of the divisions it was found that the chief clerks had not been inspecting their lines, as was their duty. Some of the routes had received no inspection174 for several years. …
The inquiry showed that the business methods of the service in several offices were antiquated and that, as a consequence, there was much duplication of work. Instructions from the department directing improvements, as for example the proper consolidation175 of mail matter and the conservation of equipment, received only perfunctory attention.
There had been a lack of co-operation also in carrying into effect certain reforms which I had indicated, and it was made evident by the inquiry that no proper spirit of co-ordination with the department existed in the railway mail service.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
herds
|
|
| 兽群( herd的名词复数 )； 牧群； 人群； 群众 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
lumber
|
|
| n.木材，木料；v.以破旧东西堆满；伐木；笨重移动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
jacks
|
|
| n.抓子游戏；千斤顶( jack的名词复数 )；（电）插孔；[电子学]插座；放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
maple
|
|
| n.槭树，枫树，槭木 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
industriously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
Congressman
|
|
| n.（美）国会议员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
fragrance
|
|
| n.芬芳，香味，香气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
oozing
|
|
| v.（浓液等）慢慢地冒出，渗出( ooze的现在分词 )；使（液体）缓缓流出；（浓液）渗出，慢慢流出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
stilted
|
|
| adj.虚饰的；夸张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
jolt
|
|
| v.（使）摇动，（使）震动，（使）颠簸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
coterie
|
|
| n.(有共同兴趣的)小团体，小圈子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
corporate
|
|
| adj.共同的，全体的；公司的，企业的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
penalize
|
|
| vt.对…处以刑罚，宣告…有罪；处罚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
conspirators
|
|
| n.共谋者，阴谋家( conspirator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
annexed
|
|
| [法] 附加的，附属的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
assassinating
|
|
| v.暗杀( assassinate的现在分词 )；中伤；诋毁；破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
prerogatives
|
|
| n.权利( prerogative的名词复数 )；特权；大主教法庭；总督委任组成的法庭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
outlawry
|
|
| 宣布非法，非法化，放逐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
31
ranch
|
|
| n.大牧场，大农场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
confiscatory
|
|
| 没收的，充公的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
33
crooked
|
|
| adj.弯曲的；不诚实的，狡猾的，不正当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
delegation
|
|
| n.代表团；派遣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
profuse
|
|
| adj.很多的，大量的，极其丰富的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
tacked
|
|
| 用平头钉钉( tack的过去式和过去分词 )； 附加，增补； 帆船抢风行驶，用粗线脚缝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
peremptory
|
|
| adj.紧急的，专横的，断然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
postal
|
|
| adj.邮政的，邮局的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
dignified
|
|
| a.可敬的，高贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
dire
|
|
| adj.可怕的，悲惨的，阴惨的，极端的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
elegance
|
|
| n.优雅；优美，雅致；精致，巧妙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
aptitude
|
|
| n.(学习方面的)才能，资质，天资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
adroitness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
deftness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
beavers
|
|
| 海狸( beaver的名词复数 )； 海狸皮毛； 棕灰色； 拼命工作的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
beaver
|
|
| n.海狸，河狸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
superintendent
|
|
| n.监督人，主管，总监；(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
crookedness
|
|
| [医]弯曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
graft
|
|
| n.移植，嫁接，艰苦工作，贪污；v.移植，嫁接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
satchel
|
|
| n.(皮或帆布的)书包 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
straps
|
|
| n.带子( strap的名词复数 )；挎带；肩带；背带v.用皮带捆扎( strap的第三人称单数 )；用皮带抽打；包扎；给…打绷带 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
worthiness
|
|
| 价值，值得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
corrupt
|
|
| v.贿赂，收买；adj.腐败的，贪污的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
corruption
|
|
| n.腐败，堕落，贪污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
densely
|
|
| ad.密集地；浓厚地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
deficit
|
|
| n.亏空，亏损；赤字，逆差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
expenditures
|
|
| n.花费( expenditure的名词复数 )；使用；（尤指金钱的）支出额；（精力、时间、材料等的）耗费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
crookedly
|
|
| adv. 弯曲地，不诚实地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
wasteful
|
|
| adj.（造成）浪费的，挥霍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
bankruptcy
|
|
| n.破产；无偿付能力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
averted
|
|
| 防止，避免( avert的过去式和过去分词 )； 转移 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
Amended
|
|
| adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
scrap
|
|
| n.碎片；废料；v.废弃，报废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
trenchant
|
|
| adj.尖刻的，清晰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
expending
|
|
| v.花费( expend的现在分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
chaotic
|
|
| adj.混沌的，一片混乱的，一团糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
cogent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
antiquated
|
|
| adj.陈旧的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
cumbersome
|
|
| adj.笨重的，不便携带的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
deterred
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
ponderous
|
|
| adj.沉重的，笨重的，(文章)冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
affixed
|
|
| adj.[医]附着的，附着的v.附加( affix的过去式和过去分词 )；粘贴；加以；盖（印章） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
inane
|
|
| adj.空虚的，愚蠢的，空洞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
subsidy
|
|
| n.补助金，津贴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
marine
|
|
| adj.海的；海生的；航海的；海事的；n.水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
perpetuate
|
|
| v.使永存，使永记不忘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
impeachment
|
|
| n.弹劾；控告；怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
excerpt
|
|
| n.摘录，选录，节录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
apportioning
|
|
| vt.分摊，分配（apportion的现在分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
illuminating
|
|
| a.富于启发性的，有助阐明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
pertinent
|
|
| adj.恰当的；贴切的；中肯的；有关的；相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
adhesive
|
|
| n.粘合剂；adj.可粘着的，粘性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
cohesive
|
|
| adj.有粘着力的；有结合力的；凝聚性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
commonsense
|
|
| adj.有常识的；明白事理的；注重实际的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
accounting
|
|
| n.会计，会计学，借贷对照表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
administrative
|
|
| adj.行政的，管理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
judiciously
|
|
| adv.明断地，明智而审慎地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
disbursed
|
|
| v.支出，付出( disburse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
expended
|
|
| v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
disbursement
|
|
| n.支付，付款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
purporting
|
|
| v.声称是…，（装得）像是…的样子( purport的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
analytical
|
|
| adj.分析的；用分析法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
administrator
|
|
| n.经营管理者，行政官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
appropriations
|
|
| n.挪用（appropriation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
invoices
|
|
| 发票( invoice的名词复数 )； （发货或服务）费用清单； 清单上货物的装运； 货物的托运 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
vouchers
|
|
| n.凭证( voucher的名词复数 )；证人；证件；收据 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
audited
|
|
| v.审计，查账( audit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
accrued
|
|
| adj.权责已发生的v.增加( accrue的过去式和过去分词 )；（通过自然增长）产生；获得；（使钱款、债务）积累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
advisers
|
|
| 顾问，劝告者( adviser的名词复数 )； （指导大学新生学科问题等的）指导教授 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
disbursing
|
|
| v.支出，付出( disburse的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
arrears
|
|
| n.到期未付之债，拖欠的款项；待做的工作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
fidelity
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠实；精确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
accomplishment
|
|
| n.完成，成就，（pl.）造诣，技能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
inefficient
|
|
| adj.效率低的，无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
investigations
|
|
| （正式的）调查( investigation的名词复数 )； 侦查； 科学研究； 学术研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
premium
|
|
| n.加付款；赠品；adj.高级的；售价高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
disapprove
|
|
| v.不赞成，不同意，不批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
delving
|
|
| v.深入探究，钻研( delve的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
inviting
|
|
| adj.诱人的，引人注目的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
rummaged
|
|
| 翻找，搜寻( rummage的过去式和过去分词 )； 已经海关检查 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
punctured
|
|
| v.在（某物）上穿孔( puncture的过去式和过去分词 )；刺穿（某物）；削弱（某人的傲气、信心等）；泄某人的气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
excerpts
|
|
| n.摘录，摘要( excerpt的名词复数 )；节选（音乐，电影）片段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
superintendents
|
|
| 警长( superintendent的名词复数 )； （大楼的）管理人； 监管人； （美国）警察局长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
inspectors
|
|
| n.检查员( inspector的名词复数 )；（英国公共汽车或火车上的）查票员；（警察）巡官；检阅官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
pegs
|
|
| n.衣夹( peg的名词复数 )；挂钉；系帐篷的桩；弦钮v.用夹子或钉子固定( peg的第三人称单数 )；使固定在某水平 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
strata
|
|
| n.地层（复数）；社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
asylums
|
|
| n.避难所( asylum的名词复数 )；庇护；政治避难；精神病院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
cerebral
|
|
| adj.脑的，大脑的；有智力的，理智型的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
animus
|
|
| n.恶意；意图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
appalled
|
|
| v.使惊骇，使充满恐惧( appall的过去式和过去分词)adj.惊骇的；丧胆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
sinecure
|
|
| n.闲差事，挂名职务 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
eloquently
|
|
| adv. 雄辩地(有口才地, 富于表情地) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
epitome
|
|
| n.典型，梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
sketches
|
|
| n.草图( sketch的名词复数 )；素描；速写；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
tout
|
|
| v.推销，招徕；兜售；吹捧，劝诱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
incompetently
|
|
| adv.无能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
wastefully
|
|
| 浪费地，挥霍地，耗费地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
supervision
|
|
| n.监督，管理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
consolidation
|
|
| n.合并,巩固 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |