The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-20

rum voting
The question being taken again, the yeas and nays
Mr. HANLlN Several senators have come into their
seas since offered the amendment, and beg TO repeat
substantially what staed before Congress has by It's
action adudcaed its accounts with all those who have
been public printers except those provided for by the
amendment To Mr.. Richie It gave 900 600 great ror-
ton oil which really aproht, and 10 all the printers'
EXCEPT W ende 4 Van Benhuysen, Congress has given
SUN Which Ienunersed them. Now, these are tne
only printers who have not been thus treated lhe Com
mtee Printing has instructed 10 repofi an anehu'
ment. pay what they believe 10 be tue actual loss,
without giving q iarh'ng OF proh N, ..u
Mr. TIEWARp hePs the amendment will prevail pre- a,bsr
contractors who had losses, and II we adopt THIS
principle we ought 10 include them. .,.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. The speech OF the gentleman
from Maine acknowledges Partially; II acknowledges
compensation, by way OF donation, to The public printers
who have violated their contract TO make profit But IN
this the says the amount Is confined TO the
mere compensation for materials without any prohl at
ALL II Is therefore Acknowledgment that II Is par
al amsndmsnI am against The whole OF these things
Committee Printing whether that committee inVes'i4
gated the matter and asceraned the facts which are sa.
ted whether The statements are received from others
Are they satisfied that The parties have actually sustained
this loss
Mr.. HAMLIN We have the facts both from exani.
nation and from the Statement, oi the superintendent oi
the public printing, who political opponent OF These
men, and whose knowledge equal to that OF any print
er III this District.
Mr. WALKER In regard to this matter, feel good
deal the from Kentucky says he does. rec
olleet little this case. Before advert 10 that.
however, let me Say that II 10 that this is the
.econd, third or fourth acknowledgment on The part OF
the Senate that u VIII up, come 'inWn, When@
ever there is combination OF the printing interest akant
IL. If recollect Alright, in the very nuencenent by
these parties Their contract, there not
very fair manifestation their part II am wrong,
will be glad 10 be corrected Blu, think these con-
those who ou; with wrong basis IN pub
shng the principal works ordered by Congress by Using
arcu lar md OF type Tor tue purpose OF dit iouuns and
scattering the letters The page and putting as hie
matter 1t possible rhey Used the small pea type,
but large plea body Thus The letters were spread
The page, and in this way as could show il he'd
tme there manifested d,poson TO treat the Sen
ale unfairly Now, il there had been printer who
with honest effort TO execute his contract had sus-
laiued loss il might be parllay 10 relieve hun
But that is cs,e with which this is not parallel
| As member OF the Committee to Aadl and Control
the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, had some OPP
porluny 10 hear this matter spoken oil and complaints
in regard 10 and venture 10 say there members
who remembered takng up the Patent Office report
printed by these gentlemen and that II presented most
singular appearance II leoked like parcel OF dots sea-
tered over The page | alnde 10 that as but one IN
stance. The printing was wretchedly done. remember
one instance OF this was pointed ou 10 me by the Sece-
ary OF The Senate, where one page did not range wnh
the other IN It's margin by three quarters al ah inch on
side there margin OF hree-quaIlers OF an nch
and the other the letters cut OF. II is manifest
that contractors should not be encouraged IN their viola
ton of contract when the work was 80 imperfectly
done. l do not See any good reason why we should
come forward 10 relieve them
Mr. HAMLlN | acknowledge all that the senator
fTOm w lsCUnsU MT WALKER mas SAID IN TtiauOU 10
The printing 1t was no, done according 10 the contract
Neither The contract made with the successor OF these
discharged any better manner; yet the Senate
nj TO make appropriation OF $4,000 TO The succeeding
contractor who did lis work better, and with no bet
ter materials
! resisted them all, and voted against them all but
when il the OF the Senate that they would re-
levt that class of these printers, believed ii Just
and equitable that all should stand upon the same footing
would now, II IL were new question. resist H. aud
would hold 10 the contract system. The Senate
tit abandon il all aud 60 into different one and IN
accordance with that decision OF the Senate shall stand
by the present printing system an II is iay and July
tired. 1t shall receive my cordial support here but
the subsequent did very lue, any BETTER
than these gentlemen think we do no mote than JUS
ice by putting these on the same footing as ihoss
who followed them. Besides between the time when this
and The time when the subsequent contracts were made
there additional securities, additional laws provd
| ing for prompiness in the execution OF the work. and
preventing the future OF those defects IN the
printing which had hitherto existed II Is true that the
printing under the FIRST contract detectives bnt the
printers were not restricted TO the kind OF type
| They used type with a small face upon a large BODY
max ing difference in the price OF position yet
il there is any justification in having departed from the
law IN the other case, there is equal Iusthcauon IN IT
Mr. BAYARD. submit tha, ibis is on, OF order 1t
seems TO that this under The decision Of the
1 Senate with reference TO the private claim OF Mr.
Richie, cannot be Disseminated except IN favor oil that
claim. looked upon that as declaratory This is clear
ly private claim, and without entering into The ques
tion of whether is proper that 1t should be allowed
not-havng formed no opinion upon ~ though gener.
ally disposed TO yield to the recommendation OF the com
mee which reported Il 10 the question OF fact
cannot for II amendment 10 tns BILL because
look upon II as private claim ask the decision OF
the Char whether IL does not within that cass OF
cases excluded by the rulesi
| Mr.. SEWARD | wish 10 say word upon that ques.
ton OF order The same question raised at the last
session-on almost its last day-upon the claim OF
Thomas Richie. who had been OF the printets TO
Congress The Senate decided that the claim OF Thomas
Rilchie Of 800 900, OF which $4,000
tuy, was a proper amendment 10 the civil and diplo.
malIc appropriation bill | suppose The Senate respects
pecedens This principle would be established by this
precedent, and what 10 order, and Just, and right
year ago is equally now. Therefore claim the de-
cision of the Char in favor OF this amendment
Mr. BAYARD With regard to the precedent alluded
10 by The senator from New York there this difference
At the last the amendment which simply
the settlement OF the accounts OF the public
printer There appropriation, but there was a
limitation that the amount should not exceed certain
sum Therefore, according decision OF majority Of
the Senate, il did not come within the rule Bat at this
session. and this very day. you have reee ed under the
rule, AZ ame idment merely explanatory OF that law
MIR SEWARD | wish to know whether Thomas
Rchie did not get large OF money under that very
clause in that very civil and diplomatic appropriation
bill II he Did, then u was an appropriation.
MIR. BAYARD. There was no appropriation
Mr SEWARD He got the money, whether there
was an appropriation or nsi The ground on which the
question ni order Is now raised is that the amendment
appropales money think, therefore, that The Senate
il ted The question, unless there be some di-
ference between the POSITIONS OF the two parties.
MIR COOPER Do understand, Mr.. President, that
the question OF order has been made
The PRES DING OFFICER. The question OF order
bas been raised.
Mr.. COOPER | do not propose to say anything on