Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-11-02
I-NIONAND AMERICtS
TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE.
SENATE.

The petition OF the Memphis Theatres
praying for a reduction of State taxes on
theatres, was reported for passage by the
Committee on Finance, Ways and Means.
THE CoNPTRoLLER's REPORT.
The Committee on Finance, Ways and
Means reported that they had examined
into the communication Of J. III. Mathes,
Collector of Privileges for Shelby county,
complaining of injustice done him in the re-
port of f. X. Pennebaker, and found that
the report of the Comptroller was calculated
to deceive the public mind as TO the amount
of tax collected on privileges in Shelby coun-
ty during the nine months ending June 80,
1871, but the books in the COmptroller's
Office show the fun amount collected by the
said j. II. Mathes.
THE PUBLIC PRINTING.
The Committee of the Senate and House
of Representatives appointed to investigate
the charges Of John Baxter, of Knoxville,
against the Printers to the State, presented
the following report; ..
Gentlemen Of the Senate andHOuse of Represen-
tatives:
Your committee, appointed under Senate
Joint resolution No. s, ITO investigate and
report upon the charges referred to in the
communication of Jones, Puryis & Co.."
have completed the labors assigned it.
Aided by the suggestions and personal at
tendance of the Hon. John Baxter, of
Knoxville, from whom the charges to be
investigated enlaiated, your committee have
pursued every known source of information
within their reach, and the conclusions
arrived al by the committee, together with
all the proof taken, are now respectfully 4
submitted for your consideration:
l. 1t is not true thai one editor from
East Tennessee sold the votes of three
members of the Legislature to Jones, Pur-
Wis & Co., and il is not true that the sum
Of five hundred dollars was paid by them to
another editor in the Western division of
the State for a similar purpose.
The proof under these charges show that
the firm Of j. o. Griffith & Co. formed
partnership with the Memphis appeal, with
the view of becoming candidates for the
public printing. and that subsequently j. O.
Griffith x Co. joined for a like purpose in q
partnership with Roberts 4 Purvis, of the
Nashville Banner, under the firm name of
Jones, Purvis Il CO., which was done with
out any dissolution Of the partnership pre-
viOusly existing between J. o. Griffith &
Co. and Che appeal. The proof further
shows that subsequently, in accordance
with the contract Of the parties, and in con-
sideration of the limited partnership exist
ing between them. J. O. Griffith & Co. paid
the Appeal the sum of five hundred dollars
as its part Of the proceeds and profits of the
partnership.
The proof further shows that, in cOnsid-
Grafton Of past association with Samuel P.
Twins in public printing, for which the State
had failed o pay, he was admitted as part
ne" IN the firm of Jones, Purvis & CO.,
while they were candidates for the public
printing. and that subsequently, the firm of
Jones, Puryis & Co. paid him the sum of
two hundred dollars in full of his interest in
the firm.
The committee are of opinion that there
Is neither fraud nor corruption in either Of
these transactions, and that the proof fails
to sustain the charges. ....
The charge that Jones, PurviS 4 Co.,
have drawn from the State fifty thousand
dollars more than they were entitledtO as
Public Printers, is wholly msustained by
III. facts rs shown in the proof, or by any
thing which has appeared in this inveStiga-
lion. TIE proof shows that the accounts
Of Jones, Puryis & CO.. are for more ems
OF composition in Is Heiskells Reports,
and in 9th Coldwelrs Reports, than actually
appear IL the pages Of the books, but the
printers for the State. which, so far as your
committee can ascertain, has been rigidly
adhered to by each predecessor of the pre-
sent printers. justiies the charge made by
them, and more than this, the proof shows
that the rule itself is neither technical nor
unreasonable, but that as the result of long
experience, il has been adopted as the safest
ami most correct rule for ascertaining the
true amount Of composition bestowed upon
the volume. The book itself does not
SHOW the true amount of composition
that goes into the form upon which tie
book is printed: lost time, extra proofs,
alterations Of copy. running over of forms,
are Incidental expenses which are necessary
TO attain perfect accuracy in the publication
of supreme Court reports, and yet they do
no appear upon the printed pages although
charged -aiHst and paid for by the printer
as ems Of composition. and hence the neces-
sitv of lule fOun led in experience
as this one is, which, if it does not ex-
actly attain 10. at least apprOXimates the
truth. This rule, so firmly established and
SO well maintained, must continue to ex-
ist for The government of all future Public
Printers as il has for all heretofore, unless
the Legislature shall choose by positive en-
actment TO establish another. Your com
mittee are Of the opinion that jones, Purvis
q Co. have not made an excessive charge Of
ems of composition in these reports. The
proof further shows that they have correctly
estimated the tokens of presswOrk and
reams of paper contained in these books,
and that they have not Oyercharged there
for. I
YoIE committee further find from the
proof that Jones, PlTvis 81 Co., have not
~. of no
number Of ems Of composition, the number
oftokens of presswork and reamS of paper
contained in the legislative journals and APP
pendices of lS69-TO, and lS70-7!. The
proof fails to sustain the accusation that
they have over-chaTged 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
nav for four compositions Of the same docu-
ment, but your committee lave failed to
find any fraud or violation of the law in
this. The fault. Il il exists anywhere. !, in
the law. Your committee aIe Of the opinion
that the Public Printers are entitled TO
charge for composition each time that it
NAV be furnished by either House, and that
they are entitled to charge for the same
matter when It appears in either or both
Journals or appendices of the two Houses.
Such is the law, and such are the rights of
the Public lrinters under the law. The
remedy, if any is needed, is in moditca-
ton of the Law. ".
Your committee might have closed their
investigation here for the want Of other
specific charges, but they have deemed their
authority to extend to an investigation of
all the accounts or Jones, Purvis i Co.,
and Of their conduct generally as Public
Printers for the State, and acting upon this
obstruction Of their powers they have heard
all proof produced which in sny manner re-