Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1876-04-15
The Wall of the Register.

handled the peoples money, that would
not incidentally s%quander it for partizan
purposes" 1t further says: 1--WE nevG'
knew a democratic official who controlled
the letting of contracts who would not
gouge for the benefit of his party
friends" This m with very poor
grace from a defender OF the republican
party, which has a notorious history for
peculation and tavoritism not confined
to this country, but appreciated and
commented on by the leading minds and
newspapers of the world. We under
stand the animus which provokes this
charge to be a petty desire to make a
political point upon the democratic man
agement of public affairs in this county,
and the following language demon
strates it:
"We thought we knew the partisanism of the
present judges well enough to know that they
would pay the Intelligencer ten dollars = line
out of the peoples money, rather than pay TINS
paper ten cents, and we thought We would take
measures to demonstrate the matter to the pub
lie"
The writer himself does not believe
the first part of this sentence, but the
second part of it shows what he would
like to do, even at the cost of creating
the condition of things set forth for the
purpose. He continues:
"One year ago. without letting any one know
except the business manager of the lntelligen-
Ger, that the public printing would be let, the
county court proceeded to make a contract with
thac paper to do the public printing. They gave
no opportunity for competition, in order that
they might reward their political friend"
No one now in this office having been
employed in it at the time mentioned.
we have taken the pains to ask Messrs.
Steele and Quarles as to its truth. Both
these gentlemen say that they mdiridu-
ally notified Mr.. Turner that the con-
tract would be let, SO that it is a ques-
ton of veracity between the Register
and these gentlemen, which we leave for
the people of Lafayette county to de-
eide.
"The year for which the above named sur
reptitiously made contract having expired, We
prepared a bid and went before the judges and
asked the privilege of presenting the bid and
having it considered"
The contract was made to hold good
until annulled, not for a year, and we
have only to say that it was made by
Judges Vickars and Weedin, to dispose
of the charge of its having been made
surreptitiously, eve if the testimony OF
Messrs Steele and Quarles were lacking.
We have explained to the people be-
fore how this contract anne to be made,
and think that nothing coming from the
Register al convince them that either
of the courts concerned would have
taken any action detrimental to the peo-
pies interest. Previous to this contract,
the printing of orders and notices, which
during the year amounts to more than
the publication OF the receipts and expen-
ditures, was generally published in all
three of the county papers, then exist
ing, and was charged for at the rate OF
from 10 to 20 cents per line. The In
telligencer proposed to do the county
printing at 3 cents per line, providing it
received it all, and the contract was
awarded it, thereby saving to the coun-
ty from % to 80 cents per line on its
printing. Now the Register comes in
and undertakes to underbid us when ii
never refused to take a big price when
it had the opportunity. On the same
hypothesis we would have the right to
claim that it robs the city of every cent
which it collects for printing. as this
paper publishes all the important ordi.
nances, and the council proceedings
more fully than does the Register, not
for 1.-TWO (2) cents per iae," but fol
nothing. The law requires that certain
public matters shall be published, and ii
is contemplated that a fair price shall
be paid for it, end though the bids o.
the Register and Intelligencer for the
city printing were so nearly alike as te
make it difficult for the committee to de
eide which should have it., when it wa:
given to the Register we did not sneak
around with a lower bid and try to max,
political capital out of it, but published
the city's ordinances and notices withou
pay, and did no growing. In the course
of our contract with the county we have
been called on to print a great many no
tees, tables, &c., for which we did not re.
ceive any pay, notably a large table Of
the status Of the county debt on Deem.
Der 18th. For a similar, but not nearly
SO extensive a service, March Goth, 1874
the Register collected $15. The Regis
ter ventures to assail the present court
it must not complain at being forced to
''chew the bag" as that is the way tc
"prove the pudding" Its belovedcoun
ty court, presided over by Judge Am
brose, whom it never wearies in defend
ing, spent the following sums for count,
printing: 1869, s2,7O3 10; 1870, 80,
2G2 45; 1871, S4,2 49, II; 1877, 49, 1877 O5
1878, S2,036 10; 1874, s1,173 As. 1
will be observed here that on the cleo
ton of Judge Tyree the amount pait
out for this purpose commenced to di
minish, as did many other items of ex
pense.
When we present our bill for tn
printing OF the receipts and expenditure
for 1875, we shall take a great deal O
pleasure in. comparing it with bills TO
the same work performed by the Am
brose court.
To see the absurdity of the charg,
made by the Register, and the spiri
which animates it, we call attention t,
the fact that the publication will, unde
our contract, cost the county from S15(
to S175, and that on one occasion it COS
the county as high as $1,000. and neve
was published rs low as last year, whel
the Intelligender received S157 for it
In speaking OF the county judges tn
Register says:
''They prevaricated an,i acted a little shame
faced to Mr.. Turner, but they do nothing of tn
kind on the records. which are for the people I
see"
AS far as this assertion is concerne,
it is a matter between the Register an,
the county justices, but from orr Lsow,l