Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-02-01
The Alabama Court Printing.
THE TEXT OF THE DECISION RENDERED RY

CONTROLLERS DURHAM.
Hon. NJ. ]. Durham, first comptroller OF the
Treasury, has addressed the following letter TO
Mr.. Julian l.. Wright, OF the committee OF Co
lumbia Typographical union:
after hearing all your proof in regard ID
your charges that more had been paid to Messrs
Gibson Brothers Tor the printing done by them
for the Court of Commissioners of Alabama
Claims than they had agreed 10 do said work
for, have come to the following conclusions:
That you were right in your construction OF
the printed statement made by Andrew IA.
Allen To said court September 10, lsS5 Ia
that statement he gives the impression thar
each page OF said printing contained .242 ems.
when, IN fact, the plain pages contained eacii
only 1896. MIR. Alien files with me a writIen
statement dated December Il, 1850, in whica
he says he WAS not a practical printer, and did
not understand the technical terms used by
printers, but learned that the pages did contain
PAP ems and that he made the same stale
ment in his printed letter a descriptive term;
but he further says his inference OF the contract
(Which was verbal ohel was that the WORK
should be like that Tor the French and
American Claims Commission. and that hs
frequently compared the pages OF the twa
and found them 10 be alike In form
and size. Notwithstanding this latter
explanation OF his former statement, which
seems plausible, should, without further eNl-
dence, decide that there had been an over
charge to the extent that you indicate in your
letter; but Mr. Fessenden, the clerk Of said
court, states that there was no written contract;
that the same was made verbally with the court
and provided that the work should conform in
Tor the French and American Claims Commits
sion, and said work was, when shown 10 the
court from time 10 time approved. have also
before me a statement in writing. dated Decem-
Der 49, 1855, signed by ali the members OF that
court, in which they say: The members OF the
court take pleasure in saying that you have eX-
ecuted the printing ordered 10y said court i'm
accordance with your contract efficiently anu
perfectly, and TO the entire satisfaction OF tns
court" DC
In your second letter, filed with me January
%, ISS6, you make this statement:
''ln view Of the position Ia ken by the firm 90
Gibson Brothers, relative to their arrangements
for executing the printing for the Court OF Com
missioners OF Alabama Claims, 10 wit: that the
number Of ems To the page did not enter into
the requirement. and that they were furnished
a sample to which they conformed, and
were paid for at the rate OF 30 cents
per page, and that extra ems were paid Tor
at the rate of 30 cents per one thousand, as SET
forth in Mr.. Aliens letter, beg 10 insist, ii tho
said firm adhere 10 this position, that they have
made excessive charges through a fraudulens
system OF measurement" ana you then give
some examples TO sustain your position.
Ihaye handed your whole statement TO two
practical printers in my bureau, who have mado
an accurate measurement OF that part OF tie
work in which you charge fraudulent system
OF measurement" and they say 10 me that they
have found said measurement generally exact
ly correct; In some instances the measurements
more than Messrs. Gibson Brothers had
charged for in their BILL 1 will say that these
men did not measure all OF said work, but dis
ferent portions taken al random without belhs
guided by any one, some as FAR back a. 1853,
some in 1850, DC. L am ignorant OF the metAoA
OF measuring said work, but rely on the measure-
ment made by these men In my bureau an whoisA
L have confidence; SO that IN looking al the
whole matter as presented in all the statements
and proof before me, have come TO the conclu-
sion that there was nothing but a verbal con-
tract between said court and Gibson Brothers
in regard to said printing, and that the same
was complied with by Gibson Brothers In all
particulars, and TO the entire satisfaction OF the
court, and that there has been no fraud In the
measurement of said work. The account they
have rendered tor the five months commencing
April 1sf and ending August 20, 1885, now ia
my Office Tor settlement shows that the work
was performed In accordance with the contract
as above specified; and the payment therefor ~
approved.
L am OF opinion that much Of the trouble
growing out OF this controversy has been be.
cause the contract for doing this work was NOS
reduced to writing; and IL Is my further opin-
ION that all such contracts should be I'm writing,
and awarded after advertisements 20 the Lowers
responsible bidder"