The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-12-30
The minority of this committee dissenting

lne minority OI CnlS COmInltCcc uisStuGluS
from the views entertained by his associates
herein, respectfully reports That it appears
from chapter Is, of the Revised Statutes of
Minnesota, that the Territorial legislative
assembly was required by law to elect a
suitable person each year to do all the incl
dental printing, and the printing Of the
laws and journals, &C., and that the person
or persons so elected shall receive such COM
pensation for these services as may be allow
| ed by law, and as may be directed to be
paid by the Treasurer of the United States.
The language of this act on the matter of
| compensation seems to have been dictated
with reference to the provisions of the
organic act, Section XII, which reads, "There
shall also be appropriated annually suffi-
cient sum to be expended by the Secretary
of the Territory, and upon an estimate to
be made by the Secretary of the Treasury
of the United States, to defray the expenses
of the legislative assembly, the printing of
the laavs, and other incidental expenses, and
the Secretary of the Territory shall annually
account to the Secretary of the United
States for the manner in which the aforesaid
sum shall have been expended"
1t is well known that the schedule of
prices allowed by the United States for
printing, binding. and advertising are par
ticularly itemised and prescribed by the
Statutes at large; hence, the Territorial
printing could at all times be admeasured
and adjusted by the scale of prices prescri-
bed and it is as fully apparent that when
the Territory became State, the provisions
of the Territorial act on public printing
were, so far as they related to price and
compensation therefor, rendered entirely
obsolete and void. 1t would seem, there
fore, that at the first session of the State
legislature further provision should have
been made for the public printing, either by
establishing scale of prices which the
State was willing to allow, or by adopting
the contract system so common with the
States; and we find on page 268 of the
Compiled Statutes, an act passed March
10th, 1858, "to provide for the letting of the
State printing, binding, and Advertising"
which authorizes and empowers the Auditor
to advertise for proposals and to let or con-
tract for the whole or any portion Of said
printing, binding, or advertising, for the
term of two years. 1t is clearly manifest
that the legislature intended by this act to
transfer to the Auditor power to represent
the State as her exclusive agent in the mat
ter, and that the State would be bound by
the act of her Auditor, provided always
that the powers conferred by the principal
were not exceeded by the acts of the agent;
and here your committee would notice, that
the act of March 10, 1858, clearly and un-
mistakably confers discretion upon the
Auditor in awarding the contract.
1t is required that each proposal shall be
accompanied by sworn statement to be
made by the bidder or bidders, specifying
the place where such printing, binding and
advertising, or any portion thereof, so bid
for, will be performs d, and the facilities
possessed by him or them for the execution
thereof, together with the name and circula-
ton of the paper in which the advertising
will be published and it allows and re-
quires the Auditor in the exercise of such
discretion founded of course upon the
statements aforesaidD to award the said con-
tract or contracts to the lowest and best
bidders for the whole or any portion of said
printing, binding or advertising. The in
terests of the State seems to have demanded
the exercise of this discretion, for although
the contract is required to be awarded to
person or persons actually engaged in the
business of printing, binding or publishing
within the State, yet the inconvenience of
printing the laws or journals at a given
establishment, and of binding the same
elsewhere-the impracticability of printing
the bills pending before the Legislature,
at distant point, and the impolicy Of
advertising the laws and public notices in
any local newspaper of limited circulation,
must be too clearly apparent to admit of
controversy or misrepresentation on this
point
tween the State and the contractor it is
utterly incompetent for this Legislature to
avoid the contract, on the grounds Of Mr..
Goodrichs bid having been higher in some
items than the bids of others and although
it is conceded that the Legislature may
properly inquire into and direct the minis
terial acts of its own officers, it cannot surely
be held that her Legislature, and far less
that single branch of her Legislative As
sembly, can declare a contract unauthorized
and invalid on account of mistaken or even
wrongful exercise of judicial discretion
which the State had vested in her own min
lister. As the majority of this committee
have charged, however, as reason for dis
regarding the Goodrich contract and for
awarding the public printing to Newson,
Foster, Moore & Co., that with respect to
many items or portions of the wolk adver-
tised in the proposals, we (they) find that
the bids of Mr.. Goodrich were made higher
than Others" "and that the con-
tract therefore would be unauthorized and
invalid" yonr committee submit the fol.
lowing:
| COMPARATIVE TABLE
Drawn from the Auditor records, showing the
rate at which MIR. Goodrich proposed to do
the work, so far as the same was bid upon by
both by Mr.. Goodrich and Messrs. Foster &
| Moore, and Mr.. T. M. Newson, and the rate
at which the same work would be done under
the average bid Ofthe two parties last named:
: Average Of
| e the bids
3 Foster &
| Moor and