Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1854-05-23
ESTIMATES FOR PRINTING.

Of the United States:
ESTIMATES FOR PRINTING.
WASHINGTON, May 19, 1854.
Some remarks made yesterday In the course
of a debate in the Senate have induced me to
give publicity to the following letter. 1t was
addressed to the late Chairman of the Senate 8
Committee on Printing, but that gentleman
having withdrawn from. the committee and
departed on visit to his home before the let
ter was completed, l have been patiently
waiting his return, and, in the mean time, the
que .tion in which the letter relates has been
suddenly taken up and decided upon an incl
dental proposition. The publication of the
letter is nevertheless necessary to my personal
| vindication. I regret that the subject of
| which threats cannet, in ordinary cases, be
| readily Apr ehended by unini ated minds, and
| that the indirections and complications of the
publication to which this letter is reply may
have rendered it less Ineligible than it would
have been under other circumstances.
WM. W. MOORE.
| OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL INrELLIGENCER,
WASHINGTON, April 29, 1854
| Hon. II. HAMLIN, u. S. Senate
SIR: Ny letter of the 9th of March, written
| in reply to your note of the 24th of the same
| month, having drawn from Mr. John G.. Riyes
the broadside" which was directed at me
| through the columns of the Globe of the oath
| April, feel called upon again to address you
on that subject.
regret to perceive that in this last publ
cation Mr.. Rives does not evince towards me
a very amicable disposition for, seeming to
distrust the force Of his own arguments and
| figures, he apparently endeavors to strengthen
his positions by insinuating that my estimates
| OF the expense of the Congressional Globe were
dictated by sinister purpose-by feelings or
interests unfriendly to him and favorable to
| others These imputations are as unjust as
they are unworthy of homes controversy. They
are utterly unfounded, and have no existence
except in Mr.. Rives's own imagination. had
| no object In contemplation but to make my es-
innate as liberal towards him As could be done
consistently with what was due to my sense of
| right and my reputation as practical prin-
| ter. If he knows of any cause that should rem
der me hostile to him, l am ignorant of it
and no one can know better than himself that
L can have no personal interest, pecuniarily
or otherwise, in breaking down his estab-
| lishment."
shall not, by imputing motives to Mr..
| Rlves, follow his bad example. In pursuing
such a course he is at least consistent, as is
evidenced by his former business controversies
| with others, who have been as ecessarily as
myself dragged before the public in his almost
interminable newspaper disquisitions on bust
ness subjects. Even in his late publication he
arraigns VITA me a clerk in the printing bu-
reau of Congress, (Mr. VIM. Towers = Both
OF US are pronounced by Mr. Riyes to be
further says that he @ never served a regul ar
apprenticeship to the printing business: But,
| because we differ with him upon practical
! question, he endeavors to place us in q false
post In regard to this Investigation with
which neither of US $50 far as l know has
ofhciously or voluntarily interfered. l know
that did not. Mr.. Rves himself saws tina,
/ 1 W1 ut sLox
| referred to this efhce, and it appears by the
letter Of Mr.. Towers Gnserted below that he
merely answered, in the most unobtrusiye
manner an inquiry propounded to him by a
member OF the Senate's Committee on Print
ing. Under these circumstances Mr.. Rives is
peculiarly unfortunate in charging US with
improper motives. What did was intended
as an act Of courtesy, and Mr.. Towers only
performed an official duty. In pnbIicly ar
raigning the latter it certainly never occurred
to Mr. Rives that one of the objects of Con-
| gress In establishing bureau of printing was
to enable its members, and especially its Com
mlttees on Printing, to obtain such informa-
ton on that subject as might be necessary to
the Intelligent discharge Of their legislative
duties, and that it is extremely indicate, if
not highly improper, for a contractor of Con-
gress to do any act that might have tendency
70 lntlmldate the members of that bureau from
communicating proper information when it is
authoritatively required of them
| L would not counsel Mr.. Riyes to quiet SUBJ
mission when be is wronged, no matter by
whom the wrong is done. But, if our esti-
| mates were erroneous and unfair as he pre
| tends, could he not have made it manifest he.
| iore an enlightened committee, composed I
believe, OF his personal friends, without ill.
naturedly imputing motives to us, through the
columns of his own newspaper, where he in
tenoed we should never be heard, in reply :?
Considering the influence OF his position and
'ne sumclency OF his means, when compar ed
WIN mine or those of Mr. Towers, is it proba-
| pie that In the committee r. ON, where Mr.
Hives originated this investigation, he could
have incurred any injustice at our hands in a
mere matter of practical computation? He
truly tells his readers that he has himself had
the experience Of more; he enumerates a
yearly expenditure in his office of nine thou
sand dollars for five superinte ndents and six
Proof-readers; and he boasts that the capacity
and practical talent of his Office are such tn At
| no where else in the United States. if in the
| world, was work ever done So fast and with
such accuracy. With all these advantages.
MS own influence and enlarged experiences
ana SO vast an amount of practical skill in
MS own employment, Ito say nothing of what
might be obtained from other offices, ! what in
ducement could two unpretending individuals
nave 10 attempt to impose false estimates upon
al SUCH an eU0rt thew could
have had no hope of success, and must have
expected to be confuted at the very threshold.
IN view Of all these things, the suspicion
tnat any such effort was made is not very
creditable to Mr.. Rives's discernment. The
IDEA is absolutely preposterous. Neither was
there any consultation land if there had been
II would not have been Improperly between Mr..
Towers and myself as regards his or INV reply
70 the committee. That he, practical print
or. ShOuId hava osfio,otaJ Al.
work and folding at nearly the same figure
that had previously done, is certainly not
more remarkable than that there should have
peen similar agreement between myself and
Mr. kives, who is not practical printer, in
respect to the cost of reporting and publishing
column Of debate. Yet, in the case of his
Own agreement with me, Mr.. Rives relates the
incident as evidence of tho accuracy of both
estimates, whilst in the other case be insinu-
ates that Mr.. Towers was influenced by nv
opinion. differences SO Numerically opposite,
drawn from incidents Of precisely the same
nature, could only have emanated from a
mind clouded by suspicion or prejudice. =
Having now denied, generally and specia.