The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-12-16


of Minnesota" The law specified particu-
larly the class Of persons who we're entitled
to make bids-deputed the duty ofreceiving
them to the State Auditor--and regulated
the matter of making the award.
The Auditor issued his notices inviting
bids for the State printing, binding, and
advertising, as the law required, specifying
the "kinds, character and quantity required
to be done for the State" "for two years
from the eleventh day of December" 1858.
This specification embraced ten items, each
item having from one to three subdivisions.
The law permitted bidSto be made for the
"whole" or "any portion" of said printing,
binding and advertising, and authorized the
Auditor to make his award "to the lo1est
and best bidder or bidders for the achole or
any portion" thereof-giving that officer
undoubted discretion both in regard to the
price at which he would award the contract,
and to the quantity to be involved in it.
This discretionary power was not only vested
in the Auditor by express language, but it
was granted by the whole tenor of the law.
As, for instance-without going into details
he is obliged to take into account, in re-
spect to the printing and binding, "the place
where" the work "will be performed" "and
the facilities possessed" by the bidder "for
the execution" thereof; and in respect to
the advertising, "the name and circulation
of the paper in which the advertising will
be published" In this way, the law did
not regard simply the price at which the
public printing, binding and advertising
should be performed, but also the certainty
of prompt and proper execution.
A large number of bids were sent to the
Auditor in response to his notice inviting
proposals. Only two of the bids thus sent
covered the entire amount of the printing,
binding and advertising-those rendered by
Mr.. E. s. GOODRICH and MIR. JAMES MILLS,
which were made for the aUh0Le or none
and the bid of Mr.. GOODRICH being much
the lower of the two. The balance of the
bids covered from taco to sic of the ten items;
no combination or arrangement of which,
however, covering the schole of the printing,
binding and advertising and all of which
the law required the Auditor to contract
for, either in "whole'' or in "part." Itwas
therefore impossible for the Auditor to have
contracted for the whole of the printing,
binding and advertising without accepting
the bid of Mr.. Goodrich or Mr.. MILLS ;
and these as we have already remarked,
were rendered for the whole or none. The
choice, therefore, being necessarily confined
to these two, in order to make the award
cover the entire printing, binding and ad-
vertising, it was decided in favor of Mr..
GOODRICH, he having made the lowest bid,
and having shown equal facilities for the
performance of the contract, in all respects.
Indeed, both the latter bids were rendered
by persons representing the same establish
ment.
We have not space to 60 into an analysis
of the various bids presented. These,
however, are all to be found recorded in the
in the Auditors Office, and free to the
inspection of all persons interested. We
content ourself with the assertion, that, TAX
ing into account the facilities offered to the
State for the execution of it's work, and the
publication of its laws and advertisements,
the bid of Mr.. GOODRICH was, in fact, the
lo.vest and best" bid rendered to the Audi
tor by any person or persons, whomsoever.
And we make this assertion, inviting, at
the same time, the most careful and candid
scrutiny in regard to its truth. Before
leaving the consideration of this point,
however, we will contrast the bids rendered
by Messrs. NEwsoN and GOODRICH, respec
lively, so far as they cover the same items,
for the single purpose of showing the
injustice to the State as well as to Mr..
GOODRICH, which was involved in the
resolutionsproposing to elect him as public
printer. Mr.. NEwsoN's bid was for the
printing comprised within sic of the ten items
specified in the Auditors notice and the
following table will show how it compares
with the bid of Mr.. GOODRICH for the same
items
Newsons bill. Goodr ich's bid.
FIRST ITEM
LIST subdivision. .85 cts. &c cts.
I'd " ...........90 65
SECOND ITEM
LIST subdivision. Sc
I'd " .85 IS