Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-02-18

hand on 1t when he furiously fourishcs in the
faces OF members the resolves ~ 1866? The
question of party he said, oul not weigh
in his mind. II was u ma of business.
and he would give it to the lowest bidder. be
he democrat republican or grecnbacker, pro-
viding they were responsible and competent
to do the work.
Mr.. PERRY replied.
Mr.. IoUNG of Brunswick, had the misfor-
tune to belong TO the last legislature, but was
not conscious of violating any oath of Office
The matter of contracts was before the FL
nance committee, and subcommittee con-
ssting of John NJ. Adams of the Eastern
Argus, was appointed to investigate the whole
subject of State printing He investigated
and reported to the committee that no per-
son could compete with Sprague, Owen &
Nash in doing the State printing; that if
Portland gentlemen had their oficc in this
city with the material to do it, they could
1 compete and make money AT il Consequent
~, wct in our childish simplicity, in our en-
tire Ignorance of the laws governing this mat
ter, thought the House did right The books
of Sprague, Owen & Nash are kept in such
manner that it is easy TO find o 1t whether they
have overcharged.
Col. Adams investigated, an if he (Young)
had violated his oath of ofic,, he did it en-
If it was now understood that the contract
was TO be given to the lowest bidder. that was
one thing; but If it was to be given to friends
that was another. If it wa' understood that
the committee was TO r'pOrt in favor Of
their friends, then he submitted that
the majority are right and the minority must
be wrong.
Mr.. ANDREWS of Cornish, in this matter
would do as in all others coming before the
hold nripr ,,,i..
lie would not impugn the motive of any
member of the committee. He could not saw
but that every one of them has acted con
scientiously. He believed it the duty of the
House to carefully scrutinizc the acts of the
State printers. and Ser whether il would be
safe to make another contract with them. But
he made no charges. He said there was a
third bid. that of Geor yc +. Mason. with good
and sufficient back ,rs; some two per
cent. higher than Sprague, Owen 4 Nash
If Sprague, Owen 4 Nash are not competent
to do the State printing on the score of their
honesty and irtcgity, then why not give it to
Mason who is $3.50 lower than Pillsbury &
Co. He would vote against the minority re-
port. but at the prop time he would offer
the contract of Nasol rs a substitute.
Mr.. F.RRINGToN of Fryeburg. inquired of
the gentleman from Camden Perry if he
stated that the Governor and Council in au-
diting these bills didn't settle them by the
contract
Mr.. PERRY said his statement was that it
need not he inferred that they were no. audit
ed according to the contract. His complaint
was that there was nothing on file to show
what paid for
Mr. FARRINGToS stated that the accounts
of Spraguc. Owen { Nash were always
brough; to the Council room and laid before
the committee to audit the bills. He was
not on that committee, but he had their con-
tidcnce, and thought the gentleman perry J
could not have stated that they were not au-
dited strictly according to the contract.
Mr.. PERRY spoke of the offer of Mr.. LOCKE
to amend. and desired to know what right a
party has to put in a bid and then change i,
after il is in the hands Of the House. why
hadn't Pillsbury Co. the same right TO re-
call their bid and put it in 10 per cent. lower
than Sprague, Owen & Nash: He objected
to any change in the contract.
Mr.. PIcKARD Of Bangor, advocated the
majority report. This taking the highest bid
is no new thing. The republican party
has given the printing to the kennebet
Journal for more than 20 years, regard
less of the lowest bids. Are we to adopt
rule that will give them a perpetual control
of this matter? Are they to have the work
while the republicans are in power at tbeil
own rate, and then when the opposition art
in control, obtain it by being able to underbit
others by reason of their gains? BY thi,
2 means 1t became perpetual monopoly |,
that the kind of encouragement that the re-
formers are to hold out to their friends
} Nobody contends that Pillsbury & Co.'S con
tract is too high Isn't it for the interest of the
n State to deal fairly and honorably with partic,
$ who do this work. Can we justify oursclve,
. before our constituents in refusing to give thi,
: work to our friends at fair rate? Shall We
= feed our enemies simply because by unlawful
= gains they are able to underbid our friends
e Shall we discourage and disgust our friend
e by strengthening our enemies! Shall we us,
our patronage to compass our own destruc
+ ton? The lowest bidders did not expect t.
. get the printing, but put in the bid to get
i little cheap political capital. Did they sup
t pose the majority of the House was going tt
l. give them the printing? For one he was no
il cowardiy enough to be frightened from thu
r path of duty by any such trickcry. His con
t stituents were too intelligent and too true t.
il their political obligations to be deceived il
c this matter On the contrary, he would ex
: pect them to denounce him if he should vot,
9 the patronage within its control into the hand
: of those who would use it to knock ont GU
d brains. Thus far he had spoken on the as
b sumption that Sprague, Owen Nash was tn,
G lowest. But he placed confidence in the ma
G jority of the committee and the statement o
= the gentleman from Camden perry that tn,
II firm of Pilsbury & Co. were low
f. Adjourned