Washington sentinel., 1854-04-29
PUBLIC PRINTING.

PUBLIC PRINTING.
Our readers will bear witness that we have
shown no disposition to trouble them with re
marks touching the public printing, or to fore
stall public opinion on a subject of litigation,
in which one of the publishers of this journal
is an interested party. We remember only one
occasion when we mentioned the controversy
touching the printing Of the second portion Of
the Patent, Office Report. Then the Union
forced US to speak, or submit to injustice. Our
remarks were brief, and confined to the single
object Of preventing the Union from creating
wrong impressions Immediately before the
hearing of the ma,tdamus case then pending
in the District court
We are sorry that the Union has again forced
us to allude to this subject by an unfounded
statement in its issue of yesterday morning.
The unfounded statement to which we allude
is contained in the italicized sentence of the
following article:
@PRISTING MANDAMts CAsE.-His honor
Judge Dunlop, in the circuit court of the United
States, yesterday, pronounced the opinion oI
the court in the case of the mandanaus prayed
by Beverley Tucker, esq, publisher of the Sen
t,net, and printer to the Senate of the United
States, against A. G.. Seaman, esq. superin-
tendent of the public printing, requiring him to
deliver to Mr.. Tucker the agricultural portion
of the Report of the Patent Office. In order
that the reader may understand this matter, it
is necessary to state that the superintendent
had decided that the printing of this document
devoved upon the printer to the House of Rep
resentatiyes, the editor of the Union.
"The case was argued some davs ago by
Reyerdy johnson and j. M. Carlisle, esqs.,
in behalf of the printer to the Senate, and
by Z. Barton Key, esq. in support of the de-
cision of Mr.. Seaman The decision Of the
court ace understand to be against the granting
Of the mandamGs, on the ground that the lar
rested de poarer an the superintendent to decide
ichich officer Of Congress acas entitled TO the
printing Of any document or documents the
printing Of which may hare been orde,edn
From the decision of the court it is under
stood that Mr.. Tucker has taken an appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States"
The court, through Judge Dunlop, refused
the peremptory mandQmus asked for by the
Senate printer, but it did not base that refusal
superintendent Of public printing the power to
decide achich officer Of Congress waS entitled
to tie printing Of any document OF documents
the printing Of actich may hare been ordered"
The law prescribes and decides which officer
Of Congress is entitled to the printing of any
document or documents, and the complaint Of
the Senate printer is, that the superintendent
of public printing did not act in accordance with
the plain and positive requirements Of the law.
but determined to cut the Patent Office Report
in two, SO as to make two separate documents
out of one report, and give the printing OF the
second portion Of the divided document to ''the
editor of the Uaion." When this method o
proceeding was objected to, the matter was lef
for the decision Of the J oint Committee on Print
ing, with the consent, and, indeed, at the sug
gestion of the superintendent himself
Some time elapsed before full NEE ting 0
the committee could be obtained; and, finally
when it did meet for the purpose of deciding
the controversy, at the last moment JUS
when the committee was about to decide, O
question was sprung as to the jurisdiction q
the committee in the premises. The Senate
printer wished the committee to decide the
matter, being willing to waive all questions, in
order TO secure fair decision from suitable
and proper source. But no; the question of
jurisdiction was pressed, and the committee
was of opinion that under the strict construc-
ton of the law, it had no power TO interfere
Believing then, that he had no other remedy
for fragrant wrong, the Senate printer applied
fora writ Of mandam,ts to require the super
intendent TO show cause why he withheld the
manuscript of the second portion Of the Patent
Office Report After argument, the District
court decided that the manddmus could not be
granted, but the ground of that decision was
not that which the Union states it to be. The
court decided not to grant the writ on the
ground that tie Printing Committee tcas the
proper tribunal 10 decide The controversy.
As soon as he was informed Of this decision.
the Senate printer informed the superintendent
oft in writing, and Of his intention to apneal
to the Joint Committee on Printing, in accord
ance with the opinion Of the court !; and he
also addressed a note TO the chairman Of that
committee making that appeal. In the mean
time, in order to take every precaution, he took
steps to have the subject brought before the
Supreme Court.
Now, if the adverse parties have any conf
dence in the legality of their position the mat
ter can be referred to the Printing Committe,
and decided, finally decided, without further
litigation; for the Senate printer is willing t
give jurisdiction to any fair umpirage.