The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1878-02-08
COUNTY PRINTING.
The Omcers Taking a Hit at
the Vexed Question.

] ne OAnCSEB = 1AAAAk n 4IHe a. {
the Vexed Question.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Judge
Perkins and aen-
era1 Davis.
In view of the prominence which
has ately been given the subject OF
Printing, in this commmu-
atty, the following decisions of At
torney General DAVIS, and of Judg e
Perkins, of the Eleventh District
Court, will be of especial interest.
of the cost of all coun-
ty advertising comes out of indi-
Viduals, and not out of the county
treasury, and all the fuss made
about it comes from newspapers
who are "out" on the printing.
These fellows sometimes succeed
in interesting special partizsns who
have spite against papers which
happen to be doing the county
work, but as general thing the
public don't care q bawbee for their
howlings. In this locality the
question was made an Issue by an
interested party, who made the sub
ject, in the last campaign, both his
politics and religion" but the Yo-
ters needed not his E,gentle racket"
and rnthlesslY refused to sustain
him at the ballot box, thus express
ing their approval of the action OF
the Commissioners in giving the
county advertising to the paper
having the largest circulation.
The first document below is the
sensible and sound decision of his
honor, Judge B. w. Perkins, of Os-
wego. This decision covers the ex-
act ground The NEWS has always
maintained on this subject, that the
delinquent tax notice is not county
printing, and that county commits
sioners had no right or authority 10
let it at reduced rates, and then col
lect full fees off the people. All
the talk about saving the county
large sums of money on account of
advertisements being let below the
rates fixed by law, is the purest
bosh and nonsense. We have new
er yet heard of an instance where
the advertising was thus let that the
people who had the fees to pay, did
not have to pay them IN full. Hence
there was no saving 10 the people,
but we have no doubt but that in
hundreds of instances the overplus
of money thus collected has gone
into the pockets of those who had
no right to it. We have never seen
or heard of an instance where the
commissioners of any county, where
this cut-throat bidding among pa.
pers has been practiced, have &C.
counted for the balance "saved on
printers fees" No one has any
right to those fees except the print
er who does the advertising, and il
many instances like the one related
below printers have afterwards col
lected them, Notwithstanding theil
cut-throat bids to do them for moth
ing.
We quote from the Girard Press
IMPORTANT TO PUBLISHERS.
In November, 1876, the county commits
sioners of this county advertised TO
sealed proposals to do the county print
ing for 1877, saying, among other things
that bids should be for ''adVertising de
: linquent land tax, each DESCRIPTION, ais.
town lots, each description" The pub
: fishers of the Press did not believe tn,
! commissioners had a right to ccmpt
; them to bid for the delinquent tax list, a
the law distinctly provided the amoun
2 that should be paid for that kind OF work
p On the 3D. of January, 1877, we presented
bill, which-after stating the prices a
} which legal blanks would be printed
, recited that E'all the legal adv ertising fol
the county would be done free of charge
our bid was accepted by the county
, board, and when the bill for PUBLISHING
the delinquent tax list was presented a
the rates which the law provides shall b,
paid for its publication, the commission
ers refused to pay the same on the grounC
D that we had contracted to do the Worl
a free of charge, whereupon an agreed
statement of facts was presented to Hon
e b. w. Perkins, judge OF the eleventh ju
diclal district, and the case came up TO
| hearing at the last term of court. In thu
! | agreed statement submitted were the ad
n Vertlsement of the commissioners and tn,
bids OF Upton g. Lamoreaux. of tn,
7 News, and Wasser & Riddle, of the Press
q The commissioners admitted that tn
county had collected twenty-five cent
2 fer each tract Of land, and ten cents ~
n each towA lot advertised, but claimed tina
the Did included the tAx-list, while w
J, claimed 1t did not. The court decide
that it did not include the tax list, as i
. was not legal advertising for the county
b that the law provided just what shout,
be paid the printer and did not allow tn
county to speculate on the cost of sue
advertising; that the county had no RICH
TO cent OF the money thus collected, ant
j. there Was no provision which entitled j
e to use the amount paid TO the treasure
In excess to that paid to the printer, an.
d tnat the commissioners had no contro
n over the tax list except to see that tn
!, bills presented were correct, and IL col
i rect 10 pay the same. Judgment was
q therefore, awarded us for the amount @
our bill, S226 80.
The following is the opinion o
AttOrney-General Davis, reudere.
in answer to q question from tn
n county attorney of Chase count,
. on the same subject. This cover
}, the whole ground and is so cenclu
. siVe as to remove all doubts upol
J the question at issue,
n OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. !
TOPEKA, KAN, Jan. II, 1873.
Hon. H. s. Sock, County -Attorne,
} Chase County, Kansas:
8 DEAR SIR:-By letter of the 10th inst.
you say: sWhat is your construction c
the laws Of 1872, page 246. giving commits
q sioners control over county printing, de
= linquent tax and other county expenses
Does 1t authorize the com
y missloners to charge the prices fixed b
! law for printing delinquent tax list, roai
notices, etc., or to what extent are tn
g commissioners bound Dy any bids tina
) might be offered 80 do the county print
!, ing, and their powers 20 fix any of tn,
Y compensation for the same2 Or hav
. they simply the right to select the paper
to DO the work at the rates fixed by law
: Or If two bids should be offered hav
! they the power to say which paper Shouts
do the work regardless OF prices? Pleas
v0Y1Y- nffor, and oaffo-s,