The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-08-14

tB amount Hf tltuIEtbfiHs uf dollars HHeH bst5n
run up by !hs official printer ies work Which
was Iii itself stInaftluUtis. and Tot which fiu
atttipfihF ever existed fatid only then during
the DAYS of Radical ulutdBringl, except III the
laws which are hereby 60 explicitly anhullsds
'tttis Law etstl Ivy thls correspondent. 90 far
as 1t goes, IL no doubt perfectly good; but II
does not Affect this ease TIE set Under which
| the "hoGtlnlsnts If The setUtfd session, ri tbs
NTH Legislature" about which this dispute
has arisen, we're printed, Is that Of 1856. fills
act Will he found Iii full III another column Of
| this isstis III the DEMOCRAT Act NO ~ Ut
ia77, which II Is olaitned repealed that III 1886,
does not designate what public documents
aliaI be- printed The only eIause Ut the adj
of 1877. relative to ths public documents. Is
the ffth, which says "tttat all officers bf The
several departments of The State, who, by
HsIsf1HG OF ftittife laws, may be required to
make REPORTS tu The General Assembly. shall
Ua,ise the same TO be printed hy The State
| Printer ftr the tise Of the Ieeislatuteh Now,
at the Time Of the ,sassage Of aeb No. ~ Of
| 1877, the existing lav Of the State
which designated what officers should make
reports 30 the General Assembly, was the ACT
Ut 1856. The act Of 1877 dUes not sntinerate
the officials who shall tnake reports, but that
| If 1856 does 10 60. and tliat oct ID evidently
referred 10 III the fifth biatse oF that Of 1871
which says 'thab all Officers oE the several
| departments who by eEisti,tG OF futfe laws
NAV By required 10 make REPORTS" etti! The
oct pf 1886, therefore, is III perfect harmony
With that Of ts77. and henoe the repeating
clause II tile latter did not toueh tIle former.
On the contrary, The ianeuass IF the latter
act directly te'banises The former rs att exist
| ina law, aud Incorporates 1t anew Into The
,finting laws III the Stats. The aBt Of 1856
stands intact as Ii was passed. except III 81
fer as II vas expressly modified by ali act Of
1868, we believe, declaring that the acts, etc,
Of the State should heneeFurth be printed Ill
the English languages only,
This ID MAIDS still more evident by The
striking fact that the act Of 1877 does not prn4
vide for the titlntin any REPORTS al al. and.
that II the act Of 1886 Ia repealed. there was no
authority to print III any manner, shape o.
| form single official report 10 ASSUME that
the Legislature Intended tI dispense with the
printing pf airy reports is simply All aljsnrd4
ty. That body found the act Ut 1896, pn thls
subject sufficient, and left 1t Ut, The statute
books AS part aid parcel OF the printing law.
The abisst lawyers ID wtiptn VIC have submitted
this question ere entirely satisfied that the net
| Of 1856 stands ,tntettealed, and that The law
| Required The work to De doi1e The Secretary
III State took this view Ut The case and or
defed the work tp be done by the stats
Printer. Suppose, then, witt, these eminent
opinions as 10 the existence Of The law. The
State Printer had declined to perform the
III.
would NOT The sleuthhohnds upon otir TRACKS
have set up q hitlsous howl against The stats
Printer. and swote that he had neglected TO
comply with his contract. and that thereby
important public documents had been left TO
be destrbyed2 Certainly they would.
| The statement ri tha tIfayurr's CORE
spondent. that the work Involved III this cotis
ttnversy had never been done sxospt ii the
| days uf Radical rlundstinF. is the emanhtipn
| or gross Ignorance. or Of malicious falsetluud.
The work was duue Under III act passed III
1866. Previous 10 that year. tbs official reports
had been printed first III tbs official Journal
ut so mitch per square, and them with tbe
same type. In book form al SO much usr page
These Volumes just such HIS those complain
Ell Of. only printed IN ~ very Inferior manner,
|
secretary If Htates office for a. long series Of
years, though probably some Of them we're
destroyed during tho war. This wss very
costly work, aud III 1856 al act was
passed requiring These documents 10
| be printed Ms previously and bound
in ons volume. bit prohibited their
publication III tho official journal With tho
exception Of 1877. not a year has passed since
| 1867 In which these documents have not been
printed and bound III the manner and form
pursued by the present stats Printer. and the
volumes from that time down arc now 10 hG
sent, in tie State Library and public Offices.
In 1877 no reports were printed, owing 10 tbs
excited situation hnd tho conflict Of author
ity between the NICHOLS government aud tbs
Packard fraud.
Thus it will be seen that 1t lns been tho pol
| Icy Of this State for mnny years bhok through
tnat1y administrations. bsfpre this war and
sinos The war: under Wing. Democratic and
Radical Administrations TO do this work just as
It has been done by tbs present State Printer
on the order Of tlis present Secretary Ut Bthte
The State Printer with this law before him
unrepealed with no other authority 10 print q
single public report, and with the presidents
Of q quarter Of n century before him could
not under any reasonable law Of human nc
tion. have refused to do this work.
Tho charge that the measurement was eE-
cessivs cannot he answered here. The public
| could not understand tho explanations If they
were made: that issue MUST be submitted IN
careful investigation by experts. This much
on that head, however we may shy; TINT we
have have had the measurements carefully
revised, and we are satisfied TINT tho State
owes Us something more than two hundred
dollars IN excess Of our charges. The purpose
of tho State Printer has been 10 def,l with per.
ffoot Justice with the State, and We believe Tint
the State printing has been done chsnper by
him thnn by my ono during the last thirty
years.
In 1906 Col. J. o. Nixon, then Of the Crescen
newspaper, WAS State Printer, and ms MI State
| Drinte,a before him and ne, all who have sue.