Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-02-24
fact. given, and from the further fac. ,h.,

4 IACto Eiv0Q, auu TOW Tue IuftneF TACT I'M
Mr.. Day is a democrat).
We enter into no defense of ourselves 70
having received what We actually r~eceivet
} namely, $4,lS2 So in cash for printing on
, thousand volumes of the revised codes Q
Dakota. The money was fully earned an,
legally paid, and the vindictive malice q
Mr.. Pettigrew fails to fasten any corruption
upon any party in connection Herewith
The over-issue Of warrants (of $500 for th'
payment Of this work and their subsequent re
turn came out Of a difference Of opinion re-
garding the use of the fund for the purchase
Of paper upon which to print the books. Th,
law specifies that 80 much should b. paid
for printing and indexing the code and
nothing was said therein about the pay
ment for paper. 10 all legislative printing
for which the general government pays,
the paper is furnished outside of any esti.
mat. for pr ming. Under the 'supposition
that the same lule held good In this case,
the five Thousand In warrants was over.
drawn To the amount stated, but it after
wards being decided BY u preponderance Of
legal opinion that the paper must be paid
for from the printing and indcxing fund,
the warrants above noted, which had been
held back pending y decision, were cancel
ed without ever being presented for pay.
meDt. lu connection with this retention
of warrants, MIR. Pctligrew claims that
some forty odd dollars nave been lost to
the territory by interest on the money set
apart for their payment. This is beautiful
in theory, but the investigation Of the
house committee into the transactions Of
the territorial treasurer, ana the report
drawn therefrom. is our evidence that
it might not have caused any such
loss. An item in that report reads that the
committee found:
3d-That the cash account SHOWS at
times large balances in his hands, without
interest being stopped by him, on outstand.
ing warrants, as required by law. The
territory was thereby the loser of various
items OF int rest, the mounts OF which it
would be difficult for your committee to
ascertain.
We shall not here stop 10 follow up
natural deductions FROM this item, but
will leave it t, the public to shape reas'
enable conclusions tberetrom. Ana when
it has finished that task, the public will
please bear 10 mind that Mr.. Pettigrew is
the man who SO vigorously defended The
treasurer, while his righteous soul rises 10.
dignantly over the bare suspicion that
ZONE one outside his ring Of pets has mad
ycr,ently been the cause OF a slight loss
in interest.
Mr.. Puttlgrew presents 10 connection
with his report the alleged bid of the st.
Paul Pioneer Press for printing one
thousand volumes IF the cnde. Nobody
but Ms. Pe,,igrew knows what sor, of a
letter was Written TO this publishing house
when his proposition was made and We
are free to assert that We would not be
lieve any unverifieu statement from him
upou the subject. He leaves it to be in,
ferred that he sent to this publishing
house a volume Of the code, as it was
pt@inled by W, aud asked for their figures
Oh one thousand copies. Knowing as they
did thai the territorial order tor this book
had long ago been filled, knowing that
the proposition WAS put forward for the
purpose OF producing evidence that some
BODY had been overpaid for the work, and
being on personally intimate terms with
Petierew and the balance of the Sioux Falls
ring, it is not unreasonable to suppose thai
they might have written down come random
figures and sent them forward. There Is
vast difference between making an estimate
upon work which has already been done BY
somebody else and 10 putting forward al
estimate based upon the probability that the
job will fall into the bidders hands. Tht
letter from the st. Paul Pioneer-Press
submitted with PettiQrew's report, for the
purpose of prejudicing us, contains within
itself conclusive evidence that Pettigrew
sent them ONE other book than the codes
of Dakota upon which to base their esti-
mates. The letter says:
I'VE do not use type same as In book
whtch IS plea, aud therefore send samples
Of small plea and long primer"
The letter states further that 1t submits
its estimate for 1000 copies like sample
sent" Mr.. Pettigrew. although admitted
by himself to be 9 very smart man is not
fully posted regarding the technical terms
Of the craft, else he never would have com.
mitted the blunder of putting that letter 10
as evidence. The revised codes of Dakota are
printed in small plea, and any man who is
enough of a printer to figure upon o Job OF
work would detect the fact at a glance and
would not be guilty Of SO objectionable an
error as to write il down as plea. Figures
made upon the basis of plea as the body
type of the book would be no sort of a guide
for a comparative estimate in the discus
sion of this subject. The codes. as printed,
make a book Of nearly one thousand pages,
A book of this size printed In Mica tvne