Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-11-03

| Appendices, and then to make a separate and
| Independent order for the Appendices them
| selves. In consequence of this practice the
Public Printers claim that they are dealing, as
| it were with two different persons-that the
| Senate is one person and the House another per-
| son, and that they are entitled to pay for COM
position for each order. And thus, though the
types are set but once, yet, the Public Printers
receive pay no less than four times for the very
| same composition. To illustrate: The Appen-
/ dixes of 1897 contain one million one hun
| dred and seven thousand ems, and the Appen-
dixes of 1901 contain two million and forty
| thousand ems. For each of these ems, Jones,
| Purvis & Co. have received pay four times. In
| other words, they have received pay for nine
| millions four hundred and forty-one thousand
| ems more than were ever set, which, at sixty
| seven and gone-half cents per Thousand ems,
| amountsSt to six thousand three hundred and
seventy-two dollars and sixty-seven and one
half cents This gross injustice is caused by the
Public Printers regarding theSenate and House
| as two different persons, instead OF regarding
| the State as one person. 1t Is the State for
whom the work is done, andnot the two Houses
In one particular only have the Committee
gone outside of the specific charges in the cir
cular of Col. Baxter they have inquired intothe
| price of paper. This they have done with the
consent of Jones, Purvis 81 Co. The minority
find that there has been no considerable over
charge in the price for paper per ream IN the
Reports. But in the Acts, Journals and APP
pendixes there has been a gross overcharge in.
| the price of paper. The proof shows that four
dollars and fifty cents per medium ream was
fully as much as the paper in the Acts, Journals
and Appendices was worth at the manufac-
tory; while Jones, Purvis & Go. have charged
the State seven dollars and fifty cents per medium
ream for nine hundred and ffty-four reams /;
and six dollars per ream for two hundred and
siXty-eight reams, making total over-charge
of three thogsautl twp hundred and sixty7f9suIr sI
dollars. This erroneous over-charge includes
only the paper in the Acts Journals and Ap-
pendixes, and does not include the hundreds of
reams used in printing the reports of State Of
icals and of Committees, for the two Houses.
The minority deem it safe to presume that, if
Jones, Purvis & CO. paid more than four dol
lars and fifty cents per medium ream for this
paper, they would have proven that fact by in
PRODUCING their bills. But instead of intro
ducing their books, bills, or other vouchers for
their paper to the Committee, Though called on
so to do,) they have claimed not to know what
the paper cost. And their answers to questions
on this point, shows either studied evasive-
ness, or an incomprehensible ignorance of their
own business.
The minority, in order to do full justice to
Jones, Purvis 81 Co., will state briefly their ex-
planation of these over-charges. In accounting
for the over-ehargein in composition In. lst Heis
kell and 6 Col1well, they plead and prove that
it has been the custom for many years, both be-
fore and since the war; to charge for two thou
sand ems to the page, in order to cover delays
in proofs alterations, extra care, etc. The minor
ty are free say that the testimony shows that it
requires more care, trouble andIdelay nprinting
these Reports than in printing Acts and Jour
mails but the minority are of opinion that all
this erzrG care trouble, and delay are intended
to be covered, and are covered, by the eTtrG
price allowed For printing the Journals, the
Public Printers are allowed sixty-seven and
one-half cents per one thousand ems, while for
printing the Reports, they get one dollars and
twelve and one-half cents per thousand ems.
In explanation of this over-charge for tokens
they prove that there are more than two tokens
of proof-work to the ream, that there are often
times four, and that they have charged Tor no
more tokens than their predecessors IN Office.
The Code II, makes a token consist OF ten
uuires,; and the minority are of opinion that
the Public Printers contract with reference to
Statute, and not in reference to usage The
minority suppose the custom of charging for the
actual number of tokens by Public Printers,
grew out of the Act of 1916, ch, 90,
which allowed forty-fve cents per token
without defining what token was. This Act
continued in force until Incorporated into the
Code, Since the Cod a token has been ten
quires, and the Public. Printers have no right
to make it any less 1FAGh ST
In explanation of the difference between the
actual cost of the paper in the Acts and Jour
mails and the price charged for 1t, Jones, Pur-
Wis s. Co., say that the cost of transportation,
the abrasion the insurance and the discount on
Comptrollers warrants must be added to the
actual cost. The minority are of opinion that
transportationis proper charge, but that ab-
rasions and insurance are intended to be cover
ed by the fifteen per cent. profit allowed by the
State. The minority regard the proposition that
Public Printers can add the discount on war
rants to the cost of the paper as startling In
its character. If the Public Printers can do |
this, so can all the creditors of the State. The
State never contemplated such discount The |
fifty per cent. added to the prices allowed the
Public Printers by the Act of 1865, chapter g. |
was. no doubt intended to cover delays in get |
ting warrants cashed, and other additional ex-
penses not in existence before the war. Besides,
there is no proof in the rcOrd as to what the dis
count was when this paper was purchased. But |
even allowing transportation abraslons, insurance
and discount on warrants, the price per ream IS |
still excessive. The pretext set up by. Jones, |
Purvis 81 Co., that the members OF the firm |
bought the paper at one price and the hrm |
bought it from its members at the prices charged |
is too absurd in law and morals to be consld-
cred.
In explanation of their charging four times
for the same composition IN the Appendices,
Jones, Purvis s. Co., again plead and prove the
usage of their predecessors as well as the Gus
tom of the craft This system of overcharg-
ing probably grew out of former practice Of
the two Houses in selecting each its own prin-
ter. But now, that the printing IS done for the
State, there is no justification for such quadru-
pie charges Jones, Purvis q Co, also say thaE
a part Of the composition in the Appendix OF
1867 was purchased by them from Grisham'
their immediate predecessor.
In word all of these explanations mean and
prove that this system of overcharglng Is one OF
Iona continuance and did not originate with
Jones, Purvis s. Co., The State has been vic
timizeds for a long time and the evil cries
aloud to us for an etfectural remedy
The minority cannot refrain from calling at
tention to the open manner of printing the
House Journals, whereby the cost of paper and
the number of ems were greatly and unneeea:sa-
riy increased This open manner Of 9fp printing I6|
is in open violation Of the the statutf Code lG9
shall be printed, and then states generally due
regard to be had to compactness in compost
tion.9 The Senate Journal would have been
printed in this open manner also, had not Mr.
George A. Howard, the Principal Clerk of the
Senate, required his Journal to be printed COM
pactly, as required by law ifhI
The minority find a charge of two hundred
and ffty-nine dollars for two hundred and fifty
nine hours in the Public Printers accounts for
tbe Acts of 1869-70 and the House journal.