Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-07-31
in some other channel An rsIv. IN any s'e''
public can judge for lh D, Is gnepnoMGoOLE.
WasulSGroN CRY,
July 25th, l6l6-at mighty

p"0''' ''n ''I GEORGE C. DROMGooLE'
WasuISGroN CRY,
July 25th, l6i6-at niShL9
COMMENTS.
/ WE submit 10 our readers Gen. Dfonsoo',
communication. Believing, as ne asserts :, -
does ,ha, we have placed his name "po'h'eu',
and conspicuously before the public lot sum NV
: other purpose than commentator anu 'a'o'a.'o
: Judgment" VIC accord to him cheerluiiy 'ne spa
he has asked for his explanation and vindlcanoh'
In REFERRING 10 The late action OF Congress upo"
the subjec, Of The public printing. in The para
nranh Ia which he has taken exception, we saiu'
owe have given very imperfect abstract OF '"e
debates nnblished in the Washington papers, o''
The main points are fairly presented we 'n'nh M
We make no comments; The public can juuse
FIR themselves. All the Virginia members pre-
con, voted AGAINST The resolution, except Messis'
Atkinson Dromgoole and Pendle'on.
Nom we cannot see how the statement Oh Inc
.:.,o ,.o, ,r;,5out comment, that three members
vote for. and all the rest who were present vote
,.a;ns, any proposition, implies either censure or
,-,se pnon the one more than upon the diner
unless there be something in The act voted Tor or
against, in itself, upon lis face, worthy OF cehsufe
or praise. II there be- then the vote is censufa-
HE or commendabe; but The mere enuncallon OF
The fact that the vote was given in particular
way does not imply the one or The other. VIC
frequently. upon subjects believed 10 be interest
inc 10 our Virginia readers particularly, give Inc
vote of The Virginia delegation, wilhoutthe whole
vote OF the House, leaving 10 all parties TO ]uose
Of The vote, according TO their opinions oil right
or wrong. Upon the subject in question we did
nothing more Our phraseology, as The uene-
ral,s communication asserts, was "guarded," but
mi from a desire ITO conceal or disguise our
meaning" We ielt our position, as public Jour
naliss. embarrassed by the intimate connection
which exists between ourselves and the pubic
printers. and delicacy forbade our expressing fui-
" our sentiments, lest we might incur the impu-
la,ion OF improper bias. The same empaffass-
ment we will add has been felt by us on more
occasions than one, when we believed duly re-
ouired us to speak. General DIomgoole must al
low US 10 say, that The paragraph complained oil
ON the present occasion affords but slight pre-
text Tor his communication. We cannot admire
the manner or the feelings which seem 10 have
prompted his article; but beyond the expression OF
Ibis opinion, we shall not go. We intend 10 abstain
from all determinations, from all personalities
In orr shor, career we have discovered enemies
enough outside the Democratic camp, against
whom we may contend We neither desire nor
will we turn our weapons against those who
ought 10 be, and from long intercourse have been,
| friends and allies. When they desert 10 the cne-
my, then we will be among the first 10 cry aloud
and spare not. While they remain battling for
the same great principles with u, we will adhere
10 our motto, "Bear and Forbear."
We have thought proper, in good temper, 10
aylhus much; but it would be uncandid, if we
did not declare that We dsapprove OF the vote, by
which The Joint resolution for reducing the rates
paid for The public printing was passed. We
shall moi discuss The question, whether the rates
for printing ought, or ought not 10 be reduced;
but we are not convinced, notwithstanding the
arguments adduced 10 The House OF Representa-
lives, sustained b. The argument before us, that il
was right or Just 10 give 10 The resolution retro
| spectve effect. In determining this question:
now that we are forced by The Generals commu-
nicaion 10 speak, We will present our views as
concisely as possible. The whole argument be-
tore US is based upon the general sentiment ofthe
members of Congress before the election prin-
ers was made; il being asserted that the general
understanding was that the rates of printing for
this Congress were TO be subject 10 sub
sequent reduction and regulation. That ii
YIN, the general understanding that The re-
duclion was 10 be retrospective, is manifest from
the number of votes given against the adoption
Of the resolution, and from The arguments and
protests of members against such construction.
General D. refers too, 10 The proceedings in both
Houses to sustain the correctness OF these posi-
lions; and he quoles the resolution Of The House,
which was adopted contemporaneously with the
resolution 10 proceed 10 The election, 10 show that
il was contemplated that the reduction should be
retrospective The resolutions are, "lhat the
House now proceed 10 elect printer for the
House OF Representatives for The 10Th Congress- =
and 'thal Select Committee Of five be appoint
ed, 10 which The whole subject of the printing for
The Two Houses Of Congress shall be referred;
and that said Committee be instructed 10 enquire
whether any. and what, change can be made in
the present mode OF executing the same-part-
cularly, whether would be better 10 lei il 10 the
lowest bidder, or have il done BY press estab-
lished and owned by the Government-and, il
moi, whether the prices fixed by law can be re-
duced."
The most that can be said Of this resolution is,
that ii is resolution OF enquiry-one that every
member might vote for, as il does not in any man.
ner commit any one 10 any particular course. II
pledges no one 10 vote for changing the presen,
mode OF executing the printing, 10 vote for letting
it 10 the lowest bidder (Gen. D. himself after
wards voted against the resolution letting the
printing TO the lowest bidder,) or 10 reduce the
prices fixed by law. Nor does il give the print
er 10 understand, that either Of these several
propositions is preferred, or will be adopted
nor does it inform him, that some modification
of his compensation will certainly be made,
whether these propositions are carried or moi.
The Committee were only TO enquire whether
any change is erpedient. Now, suppose the
Committee had recommended the frs, allerna-
tive 10 the resolution, and proposed TO change The
mode OF executing the printing. Suppose nearly
eight months should eapse before that recon-
mendaion was concurred in. In The mean time,
The printing was executed according TO The old
mode. Can il be pretended that printing executed
IN one style should receive the same compensa.
lion with that executed in another manner? thai
if required by the new mode TO be done with dit
ferent type, on different size paper in quartz
instead Of an octave form, that The same amount
, per page shall be allowed No one will believe
it-no one could SO have understood or intended
it, Or, suppose the committee had recommend
ed that "t would be better to let il 10 The Lowest
bidder" and the public printers had executed, as
, they have done, work for eight months. Sup
pose, when so let out, some other person than The
one elected printer should become the loves
| i, liad IN folye