Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1871-11-08
REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMIT
TIE

the same in the Union and american. 1t
is rs follows
Gentlemen of the Senste and House of Repre-
sentatives
joint resolution No. 8. ITO investigate and re-
port upon the charges referred To in the com
muncation of Jones, Purvi. X Co, have CONF
pleted the labors assigned it, Aided by the suB-
John Baxter, of Knoxville, from whom tho
charges to tho Investigated emsnated, your
committee have pursued every known source of
information within their reach, and the conclu
sions arrived at by the committee, together with
all the proof taken, are now respectfully SUBJ
mitted for your consideration s......
j, 1t is not true that one editor from East
Tennessee sold the votes Of three members of
the Legislature to Jones, Purvis IL Co., and it
is not true that the sum of five hundred dollars
was paid by them to another editor in the Wes-
tern division of the State for II similar pur-
poae. ..
The proof under these charges show that tho
firm of j. o. Griffith " Co., formed Il partner
ship with the Memphis App,aL with the view
of becoming candidates for the public printing,
and that subsequently J. .. Griffith. " Co.,
Joined for g like purpose In a partnership with
Roberts 6c Purvis, of the Nashville BaHner 'un-
der the firm name of Jones, Purvis 81 Co.,
which was done without any dissolution Of the
partnership previously existing between j. O.
Griffith Il Co., and the Appeat, The proof fur
Their shows that subsequently,, in accordance
alton of the limited partnership existing between
them, j. 0. Griffith & Co., paid the Appeal the
sum of five hundred dollars ms its part of the
proceeds and profits the partnership.
The proof further shows that, in considera-
ton Of the past association with Samuel p WINS
in public printing, for which the State had
failed to pay, he was admitted MS partner in
the firm of Jones, Purvis Il Co., while they
were candidates for the public printing, and that
subsequently the firm Of Jones, Purvis & Co.,
paid him the SUM of two hundred dollars in full
Of his interest in the firm. r.e q. .- r.s 4,
The committee are of opinion that there is
neither fraud nor corruption in either Of these
transactions and that the proof fails to sastain
the charges.
The charge that Jones, Purvis IL Co. have
drawn from the State fifty thousand dollars more
than they were entitled to as Public Printers, is
wholly unsustained by the facts as shown in the
proof or by anything whioh has appeared in
this investigation. The proof shows that the ac-
counts Of Jones, Purvis IL Go. are for more ems
Of composition in LIST Heiskelrs Reports and in
9Th ColdwelIs Reports than actually appear in
the pages of the books, but the long established
and recognized rule of printers for the State,
which, 50 far 10 your committee can ascertain
has been rigidly adhered to by each predecessor
OF the present printers iustitieS the charge made
by them, and moro than this, the proof shows
that the rule Itself is neither technical nor un-
reasonable, but that the result of long expert
ence, 1t has been adopted MS the safest and most
correct rule for asccrtuining the true amount of
composition bestowed upon the volume. The
books itself does not show the true amount of
composition that goes into the form upon when
the book IS printed lost time, extra proof, al
tcratiOns Of COPY, running over of forms arc in
cidental expenses, which are necessary to attain
perfect accuracy in the publication of Supreme
Court reports, and yet they do not appear upon
the printed pages, although charged against
and paid for by the printer rs ems of COMPOST
ton, and hence the necessity of Il rule, founded
in experience rs this one is which if it does not
exactly attain TO, at least approximates the
truth. This rule, so firmly established and so
well maintained must continue to exist for the
government of all future Public Printers, as it
has for all heretofore, unless the Legislature
shall choose by positive enactment to establish
another. Your committee are of the opinion
that Jones' Purvis IL Co. have not made an cx-
ccssive charge of ems Of composition in these re-
ports, The proof further shows that they have
correctly estimated the tokens of prcsswork aad
reamS of paper contained in these books, and
that they have not overcharged therefor
our committee further find from the proof
mat Jones, Purvis ~ Co, have not overcharged
Tor, nor overestimated the number of ems of
competition, the number of tokens of press
work and reAms of paper contained in the legis-
latlve Journals and appendices of lS69-70, and
lSo-,l. The proof fails to sustain the accusa-
ton that they have overchargcd for these books,
and for all other work done by them.
1T Is evident from the proof that the Public
Printers have in many instances received pay
for four compositions of the same document
but your committee have failed to find any
fraud or violation of the law in this. The fault
II 1t exists anywhere, is in the law. Your COM
lnlttee are of the opinion that the Public Prin-
ters are entitled to charge for composition each
time that il may be furnished by either House
ana that they are entitled to charge for the same
matter when 1t appears in either or both journal.
or appendices Of the two Houses. Such is the
law, and such are the rights of the Public Prin-
tiers under the law The remedy, if any is need
cd. is in the modification of the law
Tour committee might have closed their in
yesugation here for the want Of other specific
charges, but they have deemed their authority
10 extend to an investigation of all the accounts
generally Public Printers for the State, and
acting upon this construction of their powers
they nave heard all proof produced which in
any manner reelected upon the general charge
OF irregulsrity, fraud and corruption
A specific reference 10 the proof taken under
TINS vie" Of the case Is, perhaps, unnecessary,
except 40 far rs it touches upon the price Of the
paper charged by Jones, Puryis & 20. against
the Ststc
The proof shows that the paper contained in
the several volumes Of printed matter was fur
nished 20 Jones, Purvis 6 Co. by the respective
firms Of j. q. Griffith 81 Co. snd Roberts IL
Purvls. The proOffurther shows that the paper
WAS taken from the paper rooms of there re-
specuVo hrms as il was needed in tho printing
room, Snd As II il impossible to show from what
particular lot Of paper the paper Of any psrtic-
u!ar volume was taken, 80 it il imp0ssibl, to
show the original cost Of the paper At the man
uiactorie4. Hence tho committee was forced to
rely upon the judgment Of witnesses given upon
an inspection Of the paper ~ it appears in the
volume. The witnesses have almost uniformly
SAID 1t was nearly if not quite, impossible to tell
the quality or price Of paper after it has been
Tet down printed upon and compressed in
lHf . H.. H.. - Al