The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1874-10-03
Legislative Printing.


which made contraclsio for the Public Printing,
that were excessively extravagant, from the
first TO the last item, beyond any former
precedent, and ambiguous in phraseology,
except TO those who were to reap the benefit,
and who could easily land no doubt would,
take advantage Of their double meaning. Thoy
are both practical printers, and We had, here
toiore, esteemed them as intelligent and
honorable gentlemen above any suspicion Of
wrong, but either they never knew more about
printing than an uninitiated printer devil, or
the frosts Of time have obscured their know
ledge, and il is now to them = lost art. or they
were imposed upon BY crafty adopts in the
mystery Of the tart Of arts !" or have know
inely given their sanction to fat Jobs, to enrich
corrupt Printing clique which has been paid,
out of the State Treasury, the most exorbitaut
and unheard Of prices, and that too in the
face oflegitimate proposals which were offered
at NEARLY oSE-HALF, and this foul play has
gone on year after year unchecked even when
the bold and outrageous stealth was well
known to members Of the Legislature, and
more especially to the Committees on Print
ing.
A communication appeared in the last
issue Of the Sentiael, purporting to come
from Middleburg, Of which the foregoing
is an extract. A plain statement Of facts
will convict this writer, either Of misrepre-
scntation, or ignorance Of the subject upon
which he treats. Col. Longwell aud tho
writer Of this, we're both members Of the
Joint Committee on Printing; the first, in
connection with others, representing the
Senate, the other the House. That COM
mittee gave the subject the fullest consid-
GRAFTON. 1t inquired diligently into the
prices paid for the same class Of work, in
Annapolis and in Baltimore, 1t summon
ed to its deliberations some Of the most
experienced printers in both cities, one Of
whom had conducted the legislative print
ing under Republican as well as Demo
cratic Legislatures. The Committee had
before it, for its guidance, the printed rates,
for all the different classes Of work, of the
Baltimore Topographic Union, which are
the acknowledged and accepted prices Of
the printers in both Of those cities. These
prices, together with the weight and quail
ty of the paper to be used, were plainly
and explicitly reported by the committee
to both branches Of the Legislature. The
House Committee made no contract for
the printing. 1t simply reported the re-
suit Of its Investigations to the House, pre-
ferring that that body should make its
own contract for the printing. 1t will be
seen, therefore, that the allegation Of the
Middleburg writer, that the Committee on
Printing "made contracts for the public
printing that were excessively extravagant
from the first to the last item, beyond any
former precedent" is unquali6edly false,
The House Committee made no contract
at all, and the prices named in the Com
mittee's report are such as are common to
all well-regulated printing establishments
We have not been informed as to the
aggregate cost of the printing Of the last
session of the Legislature. Perhaps the
Middleburg % writer has. Two years
ago, the printing Of the journal, the bills,
aud laws and resolutions passed at the
session Of 1872, aggregated $4,000. But,
some years prior to that, when the Legis-
lature was in the hands Of the Radicals,
the cost Of the public printing of the ses-
I
sion amounted to the sum Of $4,000 |
Was this @extrayagant, beyond any for
mer precedent" or was it not? Win our
very kind friend of Middleburg enlighten
us ? If he denounced this extravaganza
through the public prints, at the time, then
| is he entitled to be considered an honest
man, making an honest effort to save the
treasury Of the State from depletion. But,
if he did not, how can he now consistently
say one word upon the subject, mach less
falsely impugn the honesty Of Others?
Finding there was no law to regulate
the public printing, we at much pains
drafted one and presented it to the House,
but it was voted down, the members from
Carroll sustaining it, and one or two YER
bose Radicals speaking and voting against
it The hill in question provided for
Committee on Printing, in both Houses,
to whom all motions to print should be re-
ferred, with view Of reducing the amount
Of printing to be done at the public ex-
pensc. Many motions to print are made
and adopted which ought not to prevail,
and would not, If referred to a judicious
committee which should report against
them Besides, the maximum sum allowed
to be expended under that bill, did not
exceed s35, 200, an amount believed to be
fully adequate, by some of the most ex-
perienced printers in the State, provided
a judicious committee should be appointed,
as the bill contemplated, in both Houses,
to serve as a check upon the orders to
print. In drafting and presenting that
bill, we believed We were acting for the
best interests Of the State, and we know
that we had her interests at heart in all
the proceedings Of the Committee; but,
there are those who will bestow censurc
instead Of praise, ignorantly or malicious
", let public servant do the best he may.
Had the Committee on Printing taken any
other course, il would have been quite as
far from affording satisfaction to this Mid
dleburg fault-fnder, who probably belongs
to class Of men who are chronic grum-
blers, right or wrong. We have before
US the report Of the Committee on Print
Ting, IN the printed journal, as well as in
the original manuscripts, and any one who
is curious enough to make the investiga-
ton, can see that the terms are not Sam
biguous, nor the prices named "extrava-