Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-07-24


seryaive that interest. Mr.. WEBSTER n''n'e''
in IS43. commended not so much ioT Inc degree "
nro,ec,on as for permanence OF duties. Inc Dill
no,v before the Senate is as liberal to the manu-
tacturers as they have any right TO expect. II al
fords 10 them bountifu favors over the DINER siea'
interests of the country. II would be madness IN
them 10 .purn its advantages. The table Of the
dog and the shadow may furnish moral. Their
srasping al every thing may lose them what Is
now so literally rendered 10 them.
On Tuesday, the House OF Representatives
passed a Joint resolution from The Senate provi-
ding Tor reduction OF the compensation paid 10
the public printers. II declares, that when any
work is executed for both Houses OF Congress,
there shall be but one charge for composition
II further provides, that, from the commence
ment OF the session, all printing, where The num-
her Of copies does no; exceed 5000, shall be paid
for al a rate moi exceeding 20 per cent less than
the rates fixed by the joint resolution OF 1919;
and when the number OF copies shall exceed o,Uoo,
the compensation shall not exceed 1884, per cent.
less than the rates OF 1919.
This bill was warmly sustained By Mr.. Garrett
Davis, OF Kentucky who contended that the pub
lie printers were elected on the condition, that
The fixing the rates Of their compensation Tor Inc
whole Congress was hereafter 10 be subject OF
proper and just legislation, and referred 10 pre-
cedeni, in which such reduction had been made,
and 10 which Blair and Rives, the then printers,
submitted without complaint. In The course oil
his remarks, he arraigncd the political course
of MIR. Bayly, Of Virginia, who arose and
defended his own past and present pollli-
cal course. But, before doing so, he examined
the merits OF The subject under consideration,
and commended that the House had no authority
10 pass a resolution Of a retrospective character,
10 operate upon The rates Of The public printing
TO Inc House ?;" mai he relation between Congress
and The public printers is that which arises on OF
q contract between them. The law OF Congress
fixes the rate OF compensation, and requires lha,
the public printer shall give ample security for
lis faithful execution. They were elected under
,ha, law; they have begun the work and eIecut-
ed the lob 10 very large extent. To that extent.
he asserted, il was moi in the power OF The House
10 reduce The rates without violation Of the con-
tract.
Mr. 3. went on further 10 show that,h House
had. al The time Of eiec,nc The public printers,
made no reservation OF the right to pass law
fixing compensation 10 operate relrospectively'
and that, therefore, they could not do it wi,hou,
the mos, palpable violation Of public faith. As
TO the precedent cited in The case Of Blair <
Rives, MIR. b. said, that the printers were then
elected after and in view OF a resolution OF the
House, declaring that the printers elect, if they
accep, the office, would lake the printing subject
10 future reduction. In the present case, NO such
condition existed. Mr. b. said, that Mr.. Davis
himself had declared al the commencement of the
session, in opposition 10 going at that time into
The election OF public printers. that thereby thou
sands of dollars would be lost, clearly admitting
hat the gentleman then believed that The House
could no, afterwards, pass resolution having
retroactive operation. Moreover, MIR. B. sad,
if the House had right 10 go back and reduce
The price oil the printing already executed, why
could they not make Blair & Rives disgorse
portion of what they had received, and more es
pecially Gales & Seaton. who are now executing
large Job ordered by the Senate at The rates oil
1897 The presen, printers were now executing
the work 90 per cent less than Gales q Seaon,
and per cent less than Blair & Riyes-and still
they heard no proposition 10 take dollar from
these gentlemen. Mr.. b. voted for Richie y
Heiss. with the distinct understanding that no fu-
lure reduction would be relroactive-and he had
expressly refused as friend of Richie q Heiss,
10 pledee them that they would submit 10 a retro
.pec,ive reduction Mr.. B. referred 10 the strong
testimony OF Mr.. John c. Rives, MIR. Gronard,
ftbe foreman OF Gales & Sealon,) and Mr.. Trcn.
holm. (he foreman of the Union ofice,) to show
that the present compensation isnot too high. MI
Rives had said, that The prices were not high
enough. The whole thing (said Mr.. b. was go'
up for political effect, and could NOT be carried
OUT without palpable violation OF the contract
Mr. Henley sustained the resoution-as &C.
cording 10 his understanding, the printers were
elected with view OF the probability Of reduc-
ton OF prices.
Mr.. Douglass though, he saw much partisan
feeling in the movement, He said that Congress
had some lime since reduced the rates 20 pei
cen,um on those OF lSl9-that Gales & Seaton
said they were sufficient, and had been elect
ed public printers; but, after executing an
enormous amount of printing two years, three
sessions of Congress, under that contract, their
political friends, The Wing majoriiies in both
Houses had, by a party vote. restored the
old prices Of 1919; thereby giving to Gale. &
Sealon a srauity Of 500 1874. Richie & Heiss
were now doing the work 5 per cent. lower than
il had ever been done before. MIR. D. said tina,
the Wings paid high prices when ii came to their
own favoriles, but raised clamor when their OPP
ponen,s did the work, although they executed tie
printing at 20 per cent. lower than they them
selves had voted.
MIR. G. S. Houston considered it reputation in
its most odious form 10 refuse the payment for
work done by the public printers, whose election
and acceptance OF the Office he regarded as po-
sive contract with them, that they should receive
for the labor the price established by law until
Congress should think proper 10 change ii. He
would vote for the resolution, il there was given
10 j. prospective, and not retroactive operation
Mr.. H. regarded public, as well as private faith,
as sacred.
Mr. Mcdowell, of Ohio, commended that the
resolution was unconstitutional.
Various amendments, striking out its retro
spectivc operation, were rejected, and the Eesou.
ton passed.
We have given very imperfect abstract Of the