Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1872-03-12
THE PRINTING QUESTION. !

THE PRINTING QUESTION 81
In view Of the fact that there will
probably be a called meeting Of The
General Council ere long in order that
the city printing question may be set
tied, and Of the further fact, that the
printing committee will have TO meet in
few days in order to prepare report
we have taken the trouble to collect apd
arrange the following figures. Slowing
clearly, and beyond all hope Of success
full refutation, that the bid for the city
printing made by the LEDGER is by far
lower (at least one hundred per cent
than that made by the Appeal. 1t has
been frankly admitted by the Appeal
that the LEDGER's bid on advertising
and publishing the proceedings is much
the lowest, but the Appeal iHsiats that
IFS bid on the tax list is below that OF
the LEDGER. Let us examine the fol-
flowing figures. The city laws provide
that the contract shall be awarded to
the lorcest and best bidder
seti esqs7 LEDGER.
One square, first insertion. 75c; and
81 same times at SOC. 81 7O............".-.S3 -
100 lines proceedings at 3c,..'-.....-.....''" w
aaaim..,i 40 az
% Total. 80 70
pa vtiede APPEAL. a ~ ala19 u
n. n 9
100 lines Of proceedings at Sc.........., ~.. 90
Total................... .............' .sl3 w
Here is difference of Sc So in favor
of the 1sEbGER Again in the ad yertis-
ing rates, the LEDaER'sJbid 70 1.-TWO
squares, one month, is Sll; the Appeals,
two squares, one month, $50. This
shows that the Appeal asks over one
hundred per cent. more for the same
work than the LEDGER.
The Appeal stated that the amount
paid it for publishing the proceedings
last year was about 500, and tn adver-
Using amounted to about $780, The
difference Of one hundred per c. ,nt. be-
tween the two bids and in favo of the
LEDGER in these amounts, form no in
considerable sum saved to the cit y,
@ THE TAX LIST.
Notwithstanding the assertions of the
AppeaLpthe difference between its bid
and that of the LEDGER amo UNITS to
nothing. The Appeal proposes to pub
lish the tax list at fifty cents per square,
according to the following formula 1--WE
have selected from the city books one of
the shortest advertisements).
\ BRIEKLEY. re. Owner. 1sotie. gloclr
90. Country Let 5I7, Size 56xlUJ feet, Madi-
son street. Valuation $500 90, School Tax
Clerks Fees 81 so, Printers Fees 81 80. Col
lectOr's Fees 81 90; Total Tax. Costs and
Charges.s.... oV
Eight lines make a square, which, at
fifty cents for four insertions, would
amount to 81 for each and every name
Published But even taking the above
(seyen lines) as an average advertise
ment, the seven lines -four insertions)
at twenty-five cents line (thle ratio as
to square) would amount 70 81 p for
each and every name published, in ac-
cordance with the appeal formula. But
when you take the following:
BRINKLEY, R. O., Administrator of J. P.
Pendergast's estate Lot 10, Block 90 County
Lot 5l7, of SaffarF ms Subdivision of Chel
sea, Size bexlOO feet. Madison street, Val.
nation $500 90. School Tax 81 30. Interest
Tax SIS 90, City Tax Sl7 so. Clerks Fees
81 80, Printers Fees 81 so. Collectors Fees
81 90; Total Tax. Costs and Charges..."S56 so
it would make an addition Of twenty
Eve cents for every line over seven, and
would run All to two dollars, or two and
a half, in accordance with the length Of
the description. 1t will be seen that at
the lowest figure the advertisement, ac-
cording to the Appeal formula, would
cost, per name, 81 IS. But even for the
sake of argument, reduce the ideserprt
ton TO six lines, at 25c line, it would
amishnt to 81 so for each and every
name published as per Appeal formula.
Nov for the LEDGER's bid" tax list
at rates allo wed by law" The law allows
a dolIa astd'd hdJf for each descrip-
lion, as given in the Appeal formula.
Here it is plain that the bid of the
LEDGER is 81 so for that which will cost
at least an average Of 81 70 in the APP
peal. Make the amount equal even as to
the tax list, the saving to the city Of at
least. 100 per cent.,in the advertisements
and publishing proceedings places the
claims of the LEDGER, under the laws of
the city, in position not to be ignored
BY even the enthusiastic friends of the
Appeal in the Council, who, we'll know
ng that they cannot elect the Appeal
seek to keep the LEDGER out by inter
posing technical objections, and by
from month to month, ena-
BE the Appeal to retain the city print
ing, although the LEDGER offers to do
The work at the lowest rates,
So far as the job worl1.is' concerned,
The Appeal not having any job office,
the work would have to be sub-let to
some job printer at regular rates, and
On this the Appeal would have to charge
} per centage. The LEDGER job office
3 perfect in all its details, and By far
he most extensive in the city. io,e ii
These facts and figures present the
printing question in light that must ,
penetrate even the minds of those legis- :