New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-02
PARMENTER'S CLAIM.

Il
| PRINTING UNDER A NEW INTERPRETATION OF A
| CoNrRAcr-wHY MR.. PARMENTER SEEKS AN
ELECTION AS ATTORNEY GENERAL
| lFRoM SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE rRBUNgI
ALBANY, Nov. 1.-When on February 8. 1875,
Lucius Robinson Controller and John Bigclow
as Secretary of State, signed contract with Je-
rome b. Parmenter for the legislative printing they
felicitated themselves, publicly at least, as having
made good bargain for the State. II was sus-
pected, however, that Roswell A. Parmenter
brother of the contractor, lawyer, and
| man or great cunning. had drawn
the contract, and the suspicion led 10 close
examination of the document by the members OF
the Legislature. Senator John H. selkreg, an old
printer, who had keenly watched Roswell A. Par
menter while the latter was member of the Sem
ate in 1874 and 1875, after an examination of tho
contract denounced it in the open Senate as Civ
| ing opportunity for the contractor to make largo
| demands upon the State for payment for "extra"
| printing. Mr.. Robinson and Mr.. Bigcow defended
the contract and in report to the Senate concerns
| ing the transaction. said:
may aty your honorable ono sSd as m DID a ss g @
the Legislative printing Of 1876 the State has already
is stil going on Willie for ali Of What may be properly
classified printing for the Legislature IN ls the new
less than oneaf the amount paid under the other
tract, not to speak OF what may yet be payable.
The sangrline anticipations of Mcssrs. Robinson
and Bigelow have not been fulfilled. Parmenter the
cheap contractor has already been paid $15,358 OF
than it said he would claim for the strict
ly legislative printing of 1876 and has claim now
before the courts for $36642 ~ additional, which
Roswell A. Parmenter, the Democratic candidate
for Attorney if elected to that Office, may
advise the State to pay.
This claim for $36, ,642 is one which will bear
anina tiou pSnacolIv as IL has tha sanction Of
| Roswell A. Parmenter, who has acted as his
brothers counsel throughout the legal proceedings
concerning 1t and prior claim, which the State
through carelessness in the Attorney-GeneraPs
Office was compelled to pay. The history OF the
conflict in the courts is brief one. At the expira-
ton of the first year of the contract 1876, the
tractor put in claim for $15,356 Oh for
extra" printing. Controller Olcott refused
to pay the claim; declaring that the print
ing denominated extra" was not extra"
under former interpretations of contracts
with printing contractors He pointed to the Joint
Rules of the Legislature, which provide for the
printing of $50 copies of bills 500 copies Of
all messages from the Governor and 700
copies of the journal of each House. Then turn
ing to the contractors proposal and tine official
advertisement for proposals for the printing he
showed that the same amount of printing was mem
toned in all the documents. Mr. Parmenter re-
piled that clause in his contract provided that any
documents not ordered g. for the of the Legsla-
ture u should be considered as "extra" printing.
1t was then pointed out that the Legislature
did not use all of the documents mentioned in tho
Joint Rnles Out of 500 copies of documents pro-
yided to be printed under the contract only eighty
copies under the Joint Rules to be distributed
in the Senate and 1919 copies in the Assembly the
remainder were to be distributed TO State officers.
private persons and private Institutions Only 273
copies of the documents were, therefore, strictly
"for the use of the Legislature" Mr.. Par
menter, it is said claimed that the remaining
521 were extra" under his contract.
Mr.. Olcott replied that former contracts had not
been read in such strict sense and refused to pay
the bill for these assumedly extra copies. Nearly
all of the reports of asvums and other institutions
to the Governor which form the bulk of all mes
s9pes from The Governor received in the month
of January. Nr. Parmenter assuming the post OF
printer on February 3, he thus had less proportion
than usual of these " extra documents TO print
His bill amounted therefore to only $l5,356 o. Mr..
Olcott having refused to pay the bill Roswell A.
Parmenter in behalf of his brother, applied to tho
courts for an alternative mandamus 10 compel the
Controller to make the payment. The case was re-
ferred to referee, Patrick IL. Cowen. VINO after
taking testimony decided in favor o. Parmenter.
Judgment was entered on August 20. 1879. Con-
troer Olcot was surprised at the referees decision,
and at once requested Attorney-Generai
Schoonmaker to appeal from the decision.
Deputy Attorney-General Paige, who was intrusted
with the management of the case neglected to make
the oppeal in time Judgment was entered there
fore and Attorney General Schoonmaker informed
Controller Olcott that he must now pay the claim,
but that he greatly regretted the carcessnes OF ms
subordinate 1t will thus be seen that the claim
has never been properly tried, Controller oicots
never would acknowledge that the referees decision
sbould have any governing force in the cOnsidera-
tiop of future claims of like character Therefore
when Parmenter presented his bill for this KIND OK
"extra printing for the year 1877 ne reiused 10
nav IT, The bill amounted and still amounts 10
S36 842 TO- with interest, which VIII bring IL up 10
$4,000 The Parmenters tried IN every way 10
indnce Mr.. Olcott to recognize the claim. They
asked him to nav 81, 900 upon it. They constantly
met with refusal When Controller Wadswortn
came into Office in 1879 the claim presented to
him. He was as firm in refusing to pay the
claim, ne Mr. Olcott had been. He showed
that The Argas Company, which had the State print
ing for five years before it secured by Mr. Par
menter had never made such claim nor had MI.
Van Benthuysen. who had held the contract Tor q
wear and half afterward. In his opinion the CLAIM
was clearly invalid. Defeated in this attempt,
Roswell A. Pamenter applied at once for an alter
native mandamus. Judge ingalls, granted the re-
ouest. as is usual. After the return OF tho
writ, Attorney-General Ward made motion
before Judge Westbrook to refer the cause
to a referee. The motion was granted, and Judge
Westbrook requested Attorney-General Ward and
Mr.. Parmenter to suggest names for referee. No
names have been suggested satisfactory to Con-
troller Wadsworth by Mr. Parmenter, and the latter
has seemed to be contened TO let the suit sleep for
n wear or two. change from Republican to o
Democratic State Administration would unques-
tionably expedite the payment of the claim ms
is probably his view. Roswell A. Parmehter' as
counsel for jerome b. Parmenter, cannot Out hA.o