Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1871-11-08

|
HouseAppendix, the two Appendices being pre-
| ciscly the same.
This charge and specification are in substance
admitted, and is also proven. Here is q most
grievous cause of financial loss to the State. The
| practice has heretofore been for each House to
| make n separate and independent order for the
various reports and documents making up the
! Appendices and then TO make q separate and
Independent order for the Appendices them
| selves In consequence of this practice the
Public Printers claim that they are dealing, as
| il 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 1920 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 IL 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 one-half cents per thousand ems,
amounts to six thousand three hundred and
seventy-two dollars and sxty-seven and one
half cents This gross injustice is caused by the
Public Printers regarding the Senate and House
as two different persons, instead of regarding
the State as one person. 1t is the State for
whom the work is done, and not 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 into the
price of paper. This they have done with the
consent of Jones, Purvis Sc 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 g. Co. have charged
the State seven dollars and fifty cents per medium
ream for nine hundred and ffty-four resms
and six dollars per ream for two hundred and
sixty-eight reams, making q total over-charge
of three thousand two hundred and sixty-fOur
dollars. This erroneous over-chargo includes
only the paper in the Acts Journals and APP
pendiIes, and does not include the hundreds of
reans used IN printing the reports Of State Of
The minority deem it safe to presume that if
Jones, Purvis 81 Co. paid more than four dol
lars and fifty cents per medium ream for this
paper, they would ! have proven that fact BY in
ducing their books, bills, or other vouchers for
their paper to the Committee, Though called on
30 to-do,O they have claimed not to know what
the paper cost. And their answers TO questions
on this point, shows either 3 studied svasive-
ness, or an incomprehensible ignorance Of their
own business.
The minority, in order to do full justice to
Jones, Purvs 81 Co., will state briefly their ex-
PLANTATION of these over-charges. In accounting
kell and Coldwell, 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 free to say that the testimony shows that it
requires more care, trouble, and delay in printing
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 extra
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 for no
| more tokens than their predecessors in Office.
| The Code, II, makes token consist of ten
| quires 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 80,
| which allowed forty-fve cents per token
without defining what a token was. This Act
continued in force until incorporated into the
Code. Since the Code token has been ten
quires and the Public Printers have no right
to make it any less.
In explanation of the difference between the
actual cost Of the paper in the Acts and Jour
mails and the price charged for ii, Jones, Pur-
| Wis IL 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
| transportation is proper charge, but that alb
| 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 add the discount on war;
rants TO the cost of the paper as one startling in
| It's character 1.-THE Public Printers can do
! this, so can all the creditors Of the State The
| |gf Cd
! fifty per cent added % the prices allowed the
! Public Printers by the Act OF sis. chRpter D.
| was, no doubt, intended % cover delays in get
/ ting warrants cashed, and other additional ex-
| peuses not in existence before the war. Besides
there is no proof in the record To what the dis
. count was when this paper was purchased. But
cveuallJWug traLsp yrtati0n abgl-ioA7. in uraDcc
and di-couu. on warrants the price per rean is
/ sll excessive. The prc-eEJ set up by Jones
PurTI- q Co.. that the members Of the firm
bought the paper 90 one price and the firm
bought 10 from its members at the prices charged
is too absurd in law and morals TO be cou,id-
cred
IN explanation of their charging four times
for the same composition in the Appcndixe-.
Jones, Puryis IL Co, again plead and prove the
usage Of their predecessors as well rs the Gus
tom Of the craft This system Of Oyercharg-
ing probably grew out Of q former practice Of
the two Houses in selecting each its own prin-
ter. But now, that the printing il done for the
State, there is no justification for such quadru-
pie charges. Jones, Puryis 81 Co., also say that
. a part Of the composition in the Appendix OF
| lsGJ-IO was purchased by them from Grisham,
their immediate predecessor
In. Lee No. e..