The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1879-05-23
Ifrom the MsTpury.I
TfIE STATE PRINTING.

The report OF the experts appointed
to measure and compute the amount Of
work done for the State by the last
State Printer and the present ono has
been published They find that Mr..
Brown has evercharged the State over
$50, 000--under their construction Of
the1aw- and tho opposition papers i'm
mediately charge fraud to that extent.
Whether there las been any fraud in
this matter is an open question. As
We have been accused by the OregOaian
Of having abetted this fraud" VIC deem
it our duty 10 state the facts in the mat
ter. This Is subject which mono but
printers can understand, but we viii
endeayor to make the matter as plain
as possible. We acted as foreman for
Mr.. Brown in 1915, and nssistod in
measuring the work, ~ Isis request
Afr. Brown instructed us TO measure
and compute the work NJ had been the
custom of former State Printers. lie
claimed that the law passed by the Leg
islaturc Of 1874 was a practical reduc-
tion Of his fees. aud therefore could not
apply to him. IA the Constitution pro
hibits reduction Of the snlary or fees
Of any State officer during the term for
which he is elected. We thcici0 com
putcd the work under the law of 1906,
the law under which the work Of Nc
Pherson, Patterson and Semplc had been
done. Mr.. Brown stated that he would,
il necessary, contest the matter rs to
which law hc was workin. under in the
Courts, and the expert therefore com-
Intcd the work under the old law The
experts who have just reported have,
with more honesty than is exhibited hy
the opposition press. given true state
men: regarding the chief difference in
thvir computations and those of the for
mcr experts in ,hc following statement:
~ thero Is marked Discrepancy be-
tween tho state PrinlaT's bill and the
amount we find him entitled o, IN OK plan.
alton thereof Il may be- we'll io state the
btsis from which No worked. We have
allowed Ia all csscA Of P-rss~o!k psr token
81 30 sheets, "r frasilau Thereof. SPACES:
fnr paper, 3iz3s, per reaui, 4 30 sheets. $40:
.5r cover papsr. per rrair, SO. IL II In
thcsc items wherein lies ih. cnief differ
.
corIlug to tie number OF tokens found by
Rllo~iug forms to 10 Of four pages instead
81 eight; Snd paper for all pamphlet work,
laws anil journals a. tho tate OF $40 per
roAul. size 1919. which "a made by taking
s. rcam of 2fN%s size and cutting IL into
| four equal parts, thus making an over
| charge of go on every ream Of paper, for
which the state Il lows so.
Tie Law under which SIR. Brown
worked dill no; specify what sizs Of
sheet should hc uaci, OF what number
"f pages al,ouli lee printed in form
The last experts arbitrarily assume that
sheets OF paper must be 24x2s inches in
I size. JiAt why they did not also as-
smme the logical sequence that one side
of his size Of sheet must be printed at
I "i:r Impression We are at loss TO under
stand. because that is the way "A sheet
OF that size must be printed, bnt they
very arbitrarily decide tia: one side of
nueha!f of the sheet of paper may be
/ made the basis Tor computing press
WORK There can be no reasonable cx-
| PLANTATION why press.work should not he
computed on a basis of sixteen pages to
the form, wlcr sheet which contains
thirty-two pages is printed. They have,
in the absence Of any law on the subject,
made a very arbitrary aud very singu-
lar ruling.
As we have above stated, the law
does not specify the size of paper to be
used, and in the absence Of any statute
ry provision, Mr.. Brown held that the
custom of previous State Printers made
the law. \ ream of paper is $50 sheets,
regardless of size. Printing for the
State had usually been done on presses
which would prin5 but four pages at an
impression, and press-work had been
charged on this basis. Paper had been
computed on this same basis-that is, u
ream of paper was $50 sheets of the
size which would contain eight printed
pages, four on each side. There was no
secret made of this secret of computing
paper and press-work. In 1872 Urban
f. Hicks, an expert employed by the
Legislature 10 examine the State print
ing, made fnll report upon this sub
iect, which report is published in the
journals for that session. He stated
then that the law permitted this. and
recommended and drew up an Amend
ment which WAS defeated at that Legis-
laturc, specifying the size of paper and
number of pages to be printed at one
impression. A similar law was, how
ever, passed in 1874, and that is Che
law under which Mr.. Cartor is now
working, although a law was passed in
1878 making still greater reduction
in the fees of State Printer. Mr.. Car
ter holds now as Brown did in 1874
that law which has the effect of re
ducing his fees cannot be made opera
tive during his term of Office. The Op
position press GLAZING that it could while
] il was Mr.. Brown who was to be affec
ted by the reduction, but are very reti
cent upon the subject now that it is
Mr.. Carter who is to suffer by such 1
decision.
Tho truth of the matter is, if Brown
! has ever perpetrated fraud upon tht
State, every State Printer before hin
committed like fraud. we are not ST
presumptous as to say what would b
!, the decision of the Courts on this ques
a ton, but in the absence of law upOl
: the subject we think there is goo,
ground for the conclusion that custom
: would be deemed the law.
Paper is made of every size AM
a shape, and every paper dealer will sa
L that ream of paper is certain nun
. Der of sheets regardless of size. Shoul
: the Gnn,ts 80 hnld. then there has bee