Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1878-05-01
The City Printing.

IN Do"'oC' w, 90 III ouly DOul1i,
comes to the defence of the Com
mon Council in the city printing
matter and shows willingness to
discharge the obligation it is under
to that body on account of the two
hundred dollar subsidy. 1t starts
out by asserting that we have 'pur
posely or ignorantly misrepresent-
ed the action of the Council and
Board of Street Commissioners"
but somehow it fails to show where
in we have mis- stated fact or Civ
en- wrong citation of law. The
truth of the matter is there is no
room for disagreement between us
as to the main point at issue. The
law says that the printing shall be
disposed Of in a certain manner,
and we have shown that the method
adopted was directly contrary to
the legal provision upon the sub
ject. The subsidy organ bubbles
and wriggles through an entire col
umn trying to break the force of
our argument, but its final summing
up Of the case explains the true in
wardness of the whole proceeding,
its point being that the city is Dem
ocratic, the Council was Democratic
and that therefore it would have
been stupid" to give the printing
to the REPUBLICAN. That is the
sum and substance of the subsidy
organs plea, and that the only JUS
tifcation it has to offer for the
Boards action. On the principle
that might makes right, and be-
cause the Democrats had the power
to confer the printing upon an organ
of their own faith, the Democrat says
the Board did the correct thing. AS
a political proposition this may be
sound, but in a legal sense it is sad
ly out of joint and will not COM
mand approval. i n'm ar
Great stress is laid by the Demo-
crat upon the claim that there were
no bids s'lawfully" before the Coun-
Gil because no proposals had been
advertised for. This is a TECHNICAL
ty unworthy of serious consideration
and shows how hard pushed the
subsidy organ is. 1t does not deny
that our bid was there, and that it
was the lowest one presented. But
admitting for the sake Of the argu-
ment that no bids We're offered, and
the Council was left to act upon
that provision of the charter en-
towering it ito provide for the
printing in such manner as it might
think proper" how does its action
square with business principles?
Admit that it was optional with the
Board to bestow the printing upon
any paper it saw fit, did it best con-
serve the interest Of the payers
by giving it to the Democrat at 50
cents a folio, when we stood ready
to do it for 10 cents? Do members
of the Board manage their private
affairs in that way? Does alderman
Kusel, who is now engaged in the
erection of a new building, let his
contracts for digging cellar, laying.
brick, &C., to the highest bidder, or
the lowest? Does he pay aperson
50 dollars for doing job Of work.
which another stands ready to per-
form equally well for $40? And is
it not safe and proper rule for an
official to be as watchful in the
transaction of the public business as
he is in his own? These are peril
nent questions to be considered, and,
fairly treated, leave the Board in an
unpleasant dilemma, confronted by
the plain, undeniable fact that it has
violated the law in order that it
might perpetrate steal. No
amount of pettifogging on the part
of the Board or it's subsidized organ
can excuse the delinquency, or sat
isfy taxpayers that the treasury has
not been robbed deliberately, me-