Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1872-04-04

Tmp P,BLIc PRrsrr<o FIAsco -Du-
ring the debates this Winter in our State
Legislature On the sn'ject Of The public
printing. and pending the action of;hc spe-
rial committee which was raised TO discov-
sr whether ans member Of the Legi.ln-
:arc wa. interested IN the printing Of the
presen, session" We fell, the same de!ica
ey ABBOTT expressing an editorial opinion.
one way or the other. that we should have
felt m ! case actually PENDING before a
Court or jury. We. therefore. abstain
ed from taking sides for or against Mr..
Coltos. aud rested content to await further
and fuller developments. The debates
now. however. have conc the "way Of all
Acsh." the special committee has reported :.
and the mountain has produced a-mou.e.
II turns out. that. whether it is criminal
or not for a member Of the Legislature to
hase finger in the public printing pie.
that Mr.. George Cotton. the party accus-
ed. had no such finger in or abou, any
such pie. II is true. the special commit
tee has acknowledged to difference Of
opinion AMONG It's member. as to the re-
cord Of Mr. Cotton in this business, but
it is also true. that four fifths Of the COM
mite fully cxoncrate him from all COM
piieity with any public printing contract
before the Legislature. and that the re-
manning member. Mr. Spencer. furnishes
not single scintilla ofcvijence TO explain
o. justify the contrary" opinion lie ha.
expressed. Blu. let Us suppose that Mr..
Cotton had been caugh. tlagranss delieto
in the very act of owning an interest in
the paper which did the prin.ing-wha,
,hen? Would he have been q Law break
er? If SO. show i; or shut up" ltcan't
be shown. and even If it could. the find
ing Of the special committee places Mr.
Cotton above all jus. suspicion and re-
rroach.
With regard to the question Of extrav.
agancc in the matter nj public printing. We
consider ourselves incompetent q. this wri-
ting to speak. This We know. however,
that the cost for this work has aitcrna,ed
for years between forty eight aud sixty
three thousand dollars. and that the pres.
ent contract stipulates to do the same work
with the additional printing of thousand
extra copies Of tho laws. for thirtv-eight
thousand dollars. II will probably sur
prize some plain people. that the ardent
reformers ofour present Legislature should
have failed to inaugura.s an earlier agits-
''on against this supposed printing extrav-
agarce. Moreover. it should not he for.
gotten. when the present. contract i. con-
si1ered. that it is for the r'ole work OF
the session and that the famous bid OF
S"2. 500 was onl, :cr pant. the heavier
work being already done uhcn i, was pu,
in. and that it has been publicly and re-
Peatcdly asserted and ncrcr succc ssfully
eon.rovertsd. .ha. the State would have
host and not saved money by accepting il.
We SIC neither in sympathy nor coliu-
sion With printing rings. or rings Of .ny
kind. either at Anuapol:s or elsewhere.
tut VIC protest, nevertheless. against the
current cant and aammcry about the i'm.
propriety anl ineligibility of members Of
the legislature, who may own IN interest
in Newspaper Office. contracting for pub
l'c work to he done in such Office, and
".ains. the injustice Of associatins Mr.
Cotton with, and condemning him about.
contract with which. he 10 shown 70 hay.
had no concern. and which. IL he had had
would have been inst rs honorable and
legitimate as any other equitable business
transaction