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

On motion of Mr. CURRAN of Calais, bill
an act to prevent the of language which,
if printed or written, would be criminaly
libcllous was taken from the table, and Mr.
GILMAN of Meddybemps, moved to Indefinite
ly postpone.
Mr.. HurCHINsoN of Lewiston, explained
the object of the bill.
Mr.. BRowN of Bangor, opposed the bill.
Mr.. GILMAN withdrew his motion which was
renewed by Mr.. YoUNG of Brunswick.
The bill was then indefinitely postponed.
On motion of Mr.. CURRAN OF Calais, bill
an act additional to chap - of the revised
statutes relating to the support of paupcrs in
unincorporated places, was taken up, the
question being on the amendment offered by
Mr.. HARRINGTON of Fryeburg.
The amendment was opposed by Mr.. LEWIS
of Sherman.
Pending the amendment. Mr.. PERRY of
| Camden, called for the special assignment,
which was the printing contracts.
Mr.. PERRY of Camden, argued in favor of
the majority report of the committee which
brings in contract with +. +. Pillsbury (
Co. He said it was no enviable task to pre-
sent the case, as it had been prejudiced by
statements that had been made among others
that the contract of Sprague, Owen < Nash
was $4,000 lower than that of +. +. Pilsbury
4 Co. The committee, before making con
the last contract had been carried out BY
SpraguC, Owen & Nash, and they had found
the bills in the office of Secretary of State
made out very indefinitely and nothing to
show for what the State had paid last year.
1t need not be inferred by this that the bills
were not properly audited by the Governor
and Council. The committee regarded this
as a loose way of doing business. Mr.. Perry
then argued to show that the State printers
had charged more than the contract price,
and mentioned that the cngrossing set in
Great Primer ought to have been charged in
Great Primer. instead of Plea.
Mr.. VICKERY of Augusta (interrupting) said
there was no measurement in the country
larger than Plea.
Mr.. PERRY then referred to the contracts,
and claimed that by resolve of 1866 the en-
crossing to he in charge of the Secretary
of State. But the contract of Spraguc. Owen
x Nash says that their contract shall zap
ply to all printing not otherwise provid-
ed for by the rerssed statutes for which the
State is held to pay" while that of Pillsburv
Co. agree in their contract that it shall
'appy to all printing not otherwise prov ded
for by iaw which the State is held to pay.
lie claimed that this would make difference
in the cost of engrossng of $500 if the
contract should be given to Sprague, owen 4
Nash The engrossing, he said ought to be
done for $500 year, but it cost last year
nearly 81, 900 to do it. He could not, under
his oath, vote to approve contract which
made the resolve of c6 a nullitv.
Mr.. LOCKE of Portland, thought it was
| the duty of members. a. business men, to
make contract on the same basis and on the
| same principles that they would if attending
| to their own business, take the lowest bidder
| if the parties are responsible. 4 great deal N
| stress had been laid on the fact that in the
| contract of Sprague, Owen & Nash. tn,
| words rertsed statutes appear where the word
iar appears in that of Pillsbury ( Co. The
| woods rerised statutes were used by the mi
nority committee surprising there was ne
| difference between that and lac. But he
had been authorized by Sprague. Owen &
| Nash to offer to change the words to tar
| Mr.. LOCKE then c,mpared the prices named
| in the two contracts, and said at the leas
calculation the contract of Sprague, Owen &
Nash was 5000 lower than that of Pilsbury
| & Co. He criticised Mr. PERRY's state
| ments in regard to overcharges fol
| printing, and said the question now i,
| on the printing that is to come
| The two contracts are before the House
and the majority report proposes to give
bonus of at least S2700 to do the State print
ing. This action W ,uld give the republicans
powerful lever ne Il year; but he dec med i
the duty of every man in the House to vote
to save every cent possible. He spoke of tn,
insinuations of fraud, and said that he did no
think the gentleman from Camden (Perry
| would undertake to assert that under tho con
| tract of Sprague Owel& Nash those gentleman
| would be able to pull the wool over the eye
| of the Governor and Council the present year
He did not see how any man could consist
emily vote to support the report of the major
ity. He gave notice that if the minority re
port was accepted he would move to srk
| out the words revised statutes and insert tn
| word law.
| Mr.. SIMPSON of Searsport, as a member o
| the majority committee advocated the report
| He declared himself in favor of retrenchmen
and reform. He also referred to the poin
made by Mr.. Perry in regard to the engross
| ing. The committee were satisfied that
was some II per cent lower than the price TO
several years, and concluded that the pric
fixed by l'illsbury < Co.. was as low as
could honestly be done for, and gave tn
printing to them and scored one for re
trenchment, The cost of $50, 900 for printin
last year was reason enough why the same one
should not have it again. 1t had been state
that the reason why Sprague. Owen & Mas
could take it so low as because they were goin
to reduce the pay of their workmen, who ar
now working at starvation prices. He aI
pealed to every member whether it was RICH
to give the contract to parties who have OF
fered to do the work below cost, and then. il
order to save themselves from loss, cut dow
their workmen, who are now working at starva
ton wages.
| Mr.. HUTCHINSON of Lewiston. looked Mt tn
matter as a business transaction. He sup
posed that the contract was to be made on tn
basis of the bids, and not by something tina
may or may not have been done last year
The question is, who will do this work for tn
least money, every other thing being equal
The gentleman from Searsport (Simpson
had said we must look out for the poor work
men. We must keep the workmen of +. +
Pillsbury well paid! What necessity for it
the work was going to be done as cheaply b
f. 4. Pllsbury & Co. as by Sprague Owen
Nash.
The written arguments seemed to dwell o
the words revised statutes in the contract re
ported by the minority. Take them out an
insert the word iag, and how would the cor
tract stand? You have the same proposition
and difference in favor of Sprague Owen
Nash's contract of some So, 900. In that wa
the gentleman from Searsport (Simpson
scored and for retrenchment, and came yer