A comparison of gross expenditures, however, is of no significance unless the sums contrasted represent payments for the same purposes. Under the earlier administration the government undertook large expenditures for the relief of destitute persons, especially of wounded soldiers and the relicts of soldiers.[337] This accounts for the remarkable size of the amounts credited to "special appropriations" in the report for 1866 and 1867. Under Bullock's administration the government spent nothing for these purposes. For a fair comparison of the economy of the Johnson government and the reconstruction government, it is necessary to compare the amounts which they spent respectively for the same objects. Their payments for the more important administrative purposes are shown in the following table:[338] +----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | 1866. | 1867. | 1868. | 1869. | +----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ |Civil Establishment |$20,771.66|$75,222.44|$50,373.72|$85,666.41| |Contingent Fund | 6,128.62| 15,430.74| 10,059.06| 19,968.16| |Printing Fund | 1,021.75| 16,114.90| 20,452.96| 7,673.38 | |Special Appropriations|304,955.05|879,897.77|210,916.11|261,097.37| +----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ +----------+----------+ | 1870. | 1871. | +----------+----------+ |$77,851.77|$78,365.21| | 38,284.44| 20,296.95| | 60,011.78| 20,000.00| |260,442.05|806,419.08| +----------+----------+ These figures show that almost all the annual expenditures of Bullock's administration, aside from "special appropriations," were well above those of the preceding administration, and that the payments from the printing fund, especially in 1870, and from the contingent fund in 1870, were so large as to convict the administration of great extravagance. The reconstruction legislature was reproached because of its large _per diem_--nine dollars. This _per diem_ was established by the Johnson government,[339] and is, therefore, not a charge against reconstruction. But the other expenses of the legislature fully corroborate the charges of extravagance made against it. This is shown by the following table:[340]