Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1858-07-23

Judiciary Committee.
We publish below the speech Of Mr. Thayer,
that part suppressed in the" full Off
cial report" of the Herald; also the speech of
Mr.. Rider. which was also suppressed in the
official organ:
AIr Thayer began BY stating that he went
into the investigation Of this matter with all his
prejudices against the claim of E. Cowles &
Go, but fully resolved to do equal and exact
Justice to all the parties in coming to deei-
sion. He was surprised at the amount Of evi-
dence produced by E. Cowles d Co sustaining
this method of charging. and was bound to con-
fess that they had met the Committee promptly /
and squarely, and had attempted no evasion OF
doJging of the issue. He said that in law. the /
Onus Of proof was upon the plaintiff, and un-
less decided preponderance Of evidence was
produced BY him 10 sustain his case, it necessa-
rily fell to the ground. The circumstances Of
this case made it the province Of E. COwles & /
Co to produce that preponderance of evidence; 4
and the testimony presented was so evenly bal /
anced, that he thought they had failed to sus- /
tain the principle for which they eontended /
He was therefore in favor of the payment of
the bill as recommended by the Committee, /
with the deduction of S26, ,29-the balance be-
ing S24I,77 When the Council attempted TO |
Covles & Co, the burthen of the proof rested |
with them, and By the same rule their case must |
fail. It would require much stronger proof to
sustain the claims Of the city in going behind
the settlements, and recover for money paid in
alleged overcharges, than it did E. COwles &
Co. to establish the rule they contended for
for the city would have to meet on the very
threshold the fact that the payments had been
made upon the recommendation of the proper
Committee of the Council, after the same had
been examined and credited by that Committee
With the ecntaet before them. For a whole
year the bill with charges now claimed to be
overcharges, have been passed upon by the
Council, found correct and paid-with what
grace, then, could they ask Court to go be-
hind these settlements on the ground of mis-
takei
Had E. Cowles d Co any right 10 make the
charges they did 1t is amply proven that the
charges were made in strict compliance with
the uniform rule of their office-made as they
make charges for similar work to every one.
The city viii have 70 meet before Jury also
the fact that the prices of all the work done for
the city was not remunerative-it IS a fact that
they have actually lost money on the contract.
But it will be said, and truly too, that that has
nothing to do in the case-the only question
being, what are they entitled to receive under
their contract Yet It is true that the fact that
they have lost money under the contract will
have its weight more or less with whoever tries
the issue.
Now, continued Mr. Thayer, what shall the
Council do I What is their duty to the city
| Shall We launch into a lawsuit that must be We
" expensive for the sake of saving seventy-fve
dollars IA suit that will cost great deal more
/ than that sum even if we are successful What
do we gaini No precedent is established by
adopting the majority report that report ex-
[ pressly repudiates the doctrine that "a pieces,
of whatever size they be, make a quire. Il
can not be disputed but that such a rule for
charging as claimed By E Cowles & Co. OBJ
tains in very many places, and with great
number Of printing establishments even in this
city. The majority Of the Committee decide
only that there was not such prePOnderanee
Of proof as warranted them in saying that E
/ Cowles & Co, had sustained their billiard at
the same time they find that there is ample
proof upon which to base verdict In favor Of
E. Cowles & Co when the city takes the burden
Of proving its claims for money paid them on
| former bills.
Mr.. Rider said he had examined the evidence
/ in the case fully and fairly, and rad dissented
/ in his opinion from all the other members of
the Committee. He was disposed to find in
accordance with what tie evidence seemed to
prOve-to wit. that Z. Cowles & Co.'S bill was
Just one, and should be allowed without any
deduction whatever. He was no. convinced
| that he had done Just right in signing the re-
| port presented by the majority of the Commit-
tee. He was still Of opinion that his first de-
cision wassthe correct one. Mr.. Rider said he
could not better express his views than by quoting
/ from the report he had designed presenting be-
fore he was prevailed upon to sign the majority
. H. ~ 81
I for these reasons that 1t violated the rules OF
evidence, or it changes the law governing the
construction Of contracts
The only question Of fact involved in this matter
| il, in what sense the word Quire," as applied to
blanks was used, when it occurs in the contract
made by the city with E. Cowles & Co. to do the
I city prin ing.
The ordinary meaning Of this word IN question
IS well understood Is that word susceptible Of the
specific and technical meaning claimed for it by E.
I Covies & Co.
To establish this we have the positive state
ments Of six eight practical printers in the city
Of Cleveland all Of whom say, on the whole matter
being g fairly and fully stated TO them," that E.
| COEles & Co. have counted aud charged blanks by
the same rule BY which they are governed in the
/ ame business with all their customers, under Ike
circumstances, and az they should have charged
the city under the contract in question
We have the evidence Of the Foreman Of the
Leader Office, showing that before at the time, and
since the making Of the contract, twas the custom
Of that Office to call twenty four blanks Of the size
OF one-fourih or one-hal sheets when printed as
large or larger than fiateap size paper, a1ire Of
blanks
This is also proven 10 be the rule in Columbus,
Elyria, Sandusky, Ashtabna, Detroit, Chicago and
in many other places
To disproye the existence Of this rule we have
the statement Of an equal number Of printers aud
dealers in stationery in Cleveland, none Of whom
directly contradict say that such rule exsts
but say they have not 90 charged their customers
and some who have printed for the city say they
never charged the city, and they say they know
Of no such rule.
This evidence falls far short Of doing away ruIs
established among printers the existence Of which
has been so clearly substsntiated.
From the evidence / find that the word Quire a
used in the contract was aud is susceptible OF beinl
used in the specific and technical sense claimed b.
E. CoWles & Co., which is the subject matter 0
the contract.
1t appears that Immediately after the date o
contract, E. Cowles & Co. began to present thei
:, accounts for work under it. That in all in
= stances they charged by the same rule for thi
z item of Blanks, and counted the quires by Ii
same rule. These accounts were iuvsriabl