Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-11-04
REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMIT
TRE ~ p

W report on the aIIegeu puDHc printing
frauds. To-day we present the report of
the majority of the committee,as as we find
the same in the Union and american. 1t
is as follows:
Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Repre-
sentltlVes
Your committee, appointed under Senate
joint resolution No. 8. ..ToinVestigate and re-
port upon the charges referred to in the COM
munication of Jones' Purvis s. Co, have COM
pleted the labors assigned it. Aided by the sug-
gestions and personal attendance of the Hon.
John Baxter of Knoxville, from whom the
charges to the investigated emanated, 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, arc now respectfully sub
mitted for your consideration
| l. 1t is not true that one editor. from East
Tennessee sold the votes of three members of
the Legislature to Jones, Puryis s. 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 a similar pur-
pose. fEkr
The proof under these charges show that the
firm of j. O. Griffith & Co., formed a partner
ship with the Memphis AppeaJ, with the view
of becoming candidates for the public printing,
and that subsequently j. o. Griffith & Co.,
Joined for a like purpose in a partnership with
Roberts u PurVis, of the Nashville Banner, FUN
which was done without any dissolution of the
partnership previously existing between j. o.
Griffith & Co, and the AppeGI. The proof fur
ther shows that subsequently, in accordance
with the contract of the parties, and in consider
alton of the limited partnership existing between
them, j. o. Griffith 81 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 cOnsidera-
ton of the past association with Samuel p Wins
in I1riuf for tho Sfotn l1ad
failed to pay, he was admitted as II partner in
the firm of Jones, Purvis & 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.
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, Puryis s& 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 which has appeared in
this investigation. The proof shows that the ac-
counts of Jones, Purvis & Co. are for more ems
of composition in 1st Heiskell's Reports and in
9th COldwells Reports than actually appear in
the pages of the books, but the long established
and recognized rule Of printers for the State,
which. so far as your committee can ascertain,
has been rgidly adhered to by each predecessor
of the present printers justifes the charge made
by them and moro than this, the proof shows
that the rule itself is neither technical nor un-
reasonable, but that as the result of long eXperi
cnce it has been adopted as the safest and most
correct rule for ascertaining 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 whicn
the book is printed lost time, extra, proof, al
teratons of copy, running over of FORMS are in
cidental expenses, which are necessary tc 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 as ems of compost
ton, and hence the necessity of Il rule, founded
in experience as this one is, which, if it does not
exactly attain TO- at least approXimates the
truth. This rule, so firmly established and so
| we'll 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 & Co. have not made an ex-
cessive charge of ems of composition in these re
ports The proof further shows that they have
| correctly estimated the tokens of preSswork aad
reams of paper contained in these books, ,and
that they have not overchaTged therefor
Your committee further find from the proof
| that Jones, Puryis & Co., have not oyercharged
! for, nor overestimated the number of ems of
work and reams of paper contained in the legis-
| lative journals and appendices of 1S69-70, and
! 1S70-7l The proof fails to sustain the accusa-
tion that they have overcharged 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,
| if it exists anywhere, is in the law Your com
mittee are of the opinion that the Public Prin-
ters are entitled to charge for composition each
time that it may 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 Prin-
tiers under the law. The remedy, if any is need
cd, is in the modification of the law.
Your committee might have closed their in
charges, but they have deemed their authority
to extend to an investigation of all the accounts
of Jones, Purvis & Co., and of their conduct
generally as Public Printers for the State, and
acting upon this construction of their powers
| Afey have heard adj proof produced which in
any manner reflected upon the general charge
of irregularity, fraud and corruption.
A specific reference to the proof taken under
this view of the case Is, perhaps, unnecessary,
except so far as it touches upon the Prtce OF the
paper charged by Jones, Puryis & Co. against
the State
The proof shows that the paper contained in
| the several volumes of printed matter was fur
nished to Jones, Purvis & Co. by the respective
| firms of j. o. Griffith & Co and Roberts ~
Purvis The proof further shows that the paper
was taken from the paper rooms of these re-
spective firms as it was needed in the printing
room and as it is impossible to show from what
particular lot of paper the paper of any partc-.
nIar volume was taken, so it is impossibls to
show the original cost of the paper at the man
ufactories. Hence the committee was forced to
rely rely upon the judgment of witnesses given upon
an inspection of the paper as 1t appears IN the
! volume. The witnesses have almost uniformly.
said it was nearly if not quite, impossible to tell
the quality or price of paper, after it has been
wet down, printed upon and compressed in a
book and the committee recognize the difficult
| ty in weighing the testimony Of witnesses upon
| the subject. Upon the other hand, the parties
themselves show that they had great difficulty
in arriving at the price which should be placed
upon the paper. On account of the deprecia-
ton of State warrants, in which they were paid
! for their labor, they were forced to rely upon
the supple of paper furnished by j. Q. Griffith
| 4lo,,, in Daunnnt tharafOr thn warrants of the