The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-12
THE PRINTING BILL.

NeltHef inc tunes uot Viz e'"v'''''
in satisfied with the printing bill which
has passed the House and Ia now await
ing the action Of the Senate. The
Times states two objections. First it
thinks the journals OF the two Houses
should not be published. Secondly 1t
thinks the printing should be awarded
to the lowest bidder. In this latter OBJ
lection the PicdVnne conours, and
objects generally to the bill.
As the bill in Its present shape con-
ferns very nearly to our idea Of what it
ought to be, and the views expressed by
us when we first suggested that the old
bill should be repealed and q new and
more economical one adopted, we feel
disposed to sustain the action OF the
House.
The Times does not maintain that the
journals Of the Houses should not be
published because the public do not re-
auire the information they give OF the
proceedings Of the Legislature. This
objection, IL it were true, would be a
good one one, in fact, conclusive
against the publication Of the journals.
The Times objects to the official pub
LEGATION only because the daily papers
make up and publish as news the pro-
ceedings. This argument Is entirely
fallacious. No special responsibility
for errors in, or perversions and misrep-
reservations of, the proceedings attaches
to newspaper publishing them as
news OF Its own accord. The papers
publishing the proceedings thus, are at
perfect liberty to publish as full or as
rneagre reports rs they please; or to
tinge them with their peculiar political
or personal views. The Legislature
would, under such system, have no
authority to insure the correct, regular
and impartial publication Of its pro-
aeedings.
II, therefore, the public requires the
publication of these journals. they
should be published officially. This is
the only question to be determined. IL
their publication is not required, then
let the official publications be suspended
and leave the different papers to give
such versions of them as may please or
profit their proprietors.
In relation to the second objection,
we entertain the same views that we
previously expressed. A bill giving
the State printing to the lowest
bidder is not necessarily an economical
measure; indeed, it proves, in the ma
iority OF cases, very extravaganza
measure.
The prices fixed in the present bill are
fair TO both the State and the printer.
They insure the latter fair profit for
his material and work, and. IL the print
ing board award the work to an honest
man, the State will receive full equiv
alent for what it pays. The present
bill indeed, IL the work Is awarded to
men who will deal honestly with the
State, will reduce the cost of the public
printing many thousands Of dollars.
This is what we call measure Of re-
trenchment. No bill can accomplish
this saving which does not rest the
mower somewhere in the State govern
ment to select its printer.
Were a bill enacted, providing that
the printing be given to the lowest
bidder. who would get the work? What
inspired prophet could estimate what
it would cost the State in the
end? We presume, il the bill shall be
amended to this end, there will be no
bidders excluded; that all parties will
be at liberty to bid, and that he who
bids lowest, and gives his bond, will be
accorded the patronage Of the State OF
Louisiana.
The experience of mankind is, that
in contests like this, where 1t is cut
throat business for public patronage.
the party who can organize the
most INSCRIPTIONS ring. can and
will make the lowest bid. But
THESE sort of bidders always make
money out Of the job. There is no one
"a easy to swindle as the State, and
there is nothing In which the State or
! corporation. having o large and va
Red amount Of printing to DO, can De