Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1874-06-11
THE STATE sWINDLED.
How the Reformers Reform.

The Walworth County Indepen.
dent has stirred up a hornets nest,
by exposing the Infamous wrong
practioed by E. A. Calkins of the
Milwaukee News, by the aid of the
Reformers Of the last Legislature, on
the people OF this state The Jude
pendent says: As the matter has
been thoroughly misrepresented, We
propose to again give the facts, COP.
led from the official record. We will
here incidentally mention shat the
editor of The Independent claims nc
credit in the case, and has claimed
none. He merely mentioned thai
being in the Assembly one session.
when this printing steal" was be-
fore that body, no was in possession
of some facts, that he would not
have been otherwise. No man il
entitled to any "glorificalion fof
having merely done his duty-and
that is ali the editor of the Indepen
dent tried to do in opposing this
great wrong 10 the people of the
state.
NOW FOR FACTS.
We now ask the reader to careful
Iy examine the following concise
statement Of facts of the case copied
from the official records By refer~
ring TO page IA of the Assembly
journal of 1873 it will be seen that
Hon. H. L. Palmer, of Milwaukee,
introduced the bill to settle this
"Claim" of Calkips 1t is known
that Mr. Palmer is one of the mos /
influential Democra' in the state,
and his influence on any measure in
the Assembly was worth at .east six
ordinary Democrats On page 1856
of the Journal of the Assembly OF
1873, it viii be seen by reference
that the bill passed by vo*e of 81
33. By examining this vote il will
be seen that every Democrat in the
Assembly, voting-(over 40 of 50
voted for this BILL And it Y Il also
be seen that all of the 33 who voteC
against the passage of this ball we ,
Republicans This is how it passed
"a Republican Assembly" BY re
ferring to page 952 of the journal O.
the Wisconsin Assembly for 1873, i
will be seen that Gov. Wash5urn
there fully sets forth the reasons
why he vetoed this bill
THE JOB.
The competing bidders were
Brown and Densmore Although
Densmore was the lowest bidder, tn,
Democratic state officers awarded
the contract to Brown, q brother
Democratic it would never do tt
let Republican do the state print
ing you know-especialy Republi
can from county that gives sucl
Republican Majorities as does old
Walworth. 1t was then officially
stated that the total of Browns bic
was $40, 356. 10 and that the total o.
Densmore's bid was scotland YET
on this bid MIR. Calkins, the assignee
of Brown, had been paid the enor
nous sum of over eighty thousand
dollars on a contract calling for a
trfe over S10,000per year-and in
addition to this, the Reformers have
| recently paid $4,000 more-rnaking
| nearly one hundred thousand dollar;
taken from the hard earnings ant
savings Of the people upon } con-
tract where the people only agreed
AM expected to pay $4,000 pc
year for two years-and which woult
have been performed by Mr.. Dens
more for less than ten Thousand dol
lars per year.
INVENTIVE CALKINs.
Mr.. Calkins now claims in his ar
ticle published IN the Liberal, tina
Densmores bid was rejected fer cir
regularity and fraud" but the com
missioners (Messrs. Barstow, Jams
sen and George B. Smith) at the
time officially stated that iii Mr.
Densmore's bid was in compliance
with law, the bid of Mr.. Brown was
the Lowest and best bid" so it will
be seen that the charge of 'fraud, y
on Densmore is q pure invention 0
Mr.. Caikins and an afterth cught.
Among other cogent reasons giver
by Gov. Washburn for vetoing Thu
bill were the following:
Brown assigned his contract tC
Calkin's and Proudft. The contrac
tors receivedat different times on TIKI
two years contract the sum Of $40
590.93, as appears from a statement
from the Secretary of States office
On the 9th of October, 1866, Calkins
and Proudfit gave receipt in full 10
the state tor the balance due or print
ing during tho two years Of their
contract, which expired Jan. LIST
1857. In March, 1871, a receipt was
given to the state (see Assembly
Journal, page 954-for 1879 by
Andrew Proudfit, assignee of Calk.
ms, and j. K Proudfit, for the sum
of $4,000 which was in full, Of all
demands or claim Of any nature
arising or growing cut of contract
for printing made by Beriah Brown,
and by him assigned, etc. The Gov
ernor further says:
"This shows, beyond question,
that there was no error 10 the find
ing OF the court at tho last trial, and
the claimant was paid, before the
last appropriation, the whole amount
due under the contract. Under that
contract, when it was awarded by
Secretary Gray to Densmore, it was
estimated by Gray that the printing
would amount to s9940 year and
yet, under the contract as awarded
to Brown, the sum Of S70,590 90
was paid to him and his assigns up
to Feb. q, 1857, and on the 21st
day Of March, 1871, the sum Of 12,-
900 more, making a total received
under the contract of So, $500 3
From this statement [ think you
must be satisfied that there ia no
legal or equitable verdict upon which
any sum is due to the claimant, but
that on the contrary, they have been
treated with wonderful liberaity by