Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-02-17
TREASURY DEPARTMENT.,
FIRST CoMPTRoLLER's OFFICE,

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
FIRST CoMPTRoLLER's OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, DC. January %, 1886.
Julian L. Wright, esq., 1902 Marion st. mo-
SIR: After hearing all proof regard to your
charges that more had been paid to Messrs Gibson
Brothers for the printing by them for the Court
OF commissioners of Alabama Claims than they had
agreed to do said work for have come to the follow
ing conclusion: That you were right in your
ton Oh their contract as you interpreted the by
the printed statement made by Andrew II. Allen to
said court September 49, 1855 In that statement he
gives the impression tina. each page of said printing
contained 1242 ems, when, in fact the nlain pages
contained each only 90. Mr. Allen files with me a
written statement dated December IL 1885 in which
ne says he was not a practical printer and did not
understand the technical terms used by printers but
learned that the pages did contain 242 ems and that
ne made the same statement In his printed letter
descriptive term but he further says his inference of
tue contract (Which was a verbal One) was that the
work should be like that for the French and
American Claims Commission, and that he frequently
compared the pages of two and found them to be
alike In form and size Notwithstanding this latter
explanation of his former statement, which seems
plausible, should without further evidence. decide
That there had been overcharge to the extent that
you indicate in your letter; but Mr. Fessenden the
clerk of said court states that there written
contract; that the same made verbally with the
court and provided that the work should conform
form and dimensions of pages with that done or the
french and American Claims Commission, and said
work was, when shown to the court from time to time
approved. have also before statement in writ
lng dated December 19, 1885, signed by all The mem
oers OF that court, In which they say: 1.-The members
OF the court take pleasure in saying that you have
ecuted the printing ordered by said court in accord
ance with your contract efficiently and perfectly and
TO the entire satisfaction of the court" &C.
In your second letter, filed with January %
1886, you make this statement:
In view of the position taken by the firm of Gibson
BROTHERS. relative to their arrangement for executing
Ihe printing for the Court of Comm issoners of
oama Claims, to wit that the number of ems to the
page did not enter into the requirement. and
were furnished sam pie to which they conormed and
were paid tor at the rate of 80 per page
extra ems paid for tn of 20 cents per
thousand as set forth ill Mr. Aliens letter. beg to in
sst II the said firm adhere to this position that they
have made excessive charges through a fraudulent
system of measurement" and you then give some ex-
ampes to sustain your position
nave handed your whole statement to two practical
printers In my bureau, who have made an accurate
measurement of that part of the work in which YOU
charge fraudulent system of measurement" and
they to that they have found said measurement
generally exactly correct in instances the meas
urement was 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 diff
terent portions taken at random without being
guided by any one, some as far back 1885, some
In 1883, &c am ignorant of the method of measur-
ing SAID work, but rely on the measurement made
oy these men in my bureau in whom have conf
oehce' So tnaI In looking at the whole matter
scented in all the statements and proof before me- l
have come to the conclusion there was nothing
but verbal contract between said court and Gibson
BROTHERS in regard to said printing the same
was complied with by Gibson Brothers in all partcu-
lars and to the entire satisfaction court and
that there has been fraud i'm the measurement of
said work. The account they have rendered for the
hVe months commencing April 1st and ending Au-
gust 70 1880, now In my office for settlement shows
that the work performed in accordance with the
contract as above specified; the payment there
for is approved
am of opinion that much of the trouble growing
out of this has been because the contract
for doing this work reduced to writing and it
Is my further opinion thai all such should be
In writing, and awarded after advertisement to the
lowest responsible bidder.
Very respectfully,
NJ. j. DURHAM, Comptroller
This entire correspondence is published in order
that the discriminating reader judge whether the
matter has been disproved. As was not present
When the matter was measured to insist that the Glib
son method should not be followed undoubtedly
was the proper method outlined in my letters OF
January % and January 26, was ignored A compari.
son with suppostitious case will make the matter
plain: capitalist verbally contracts furnish five
lots and erect thereon five houses each and house
10 cost the purchaser $1,000. Instead of this With
the consent of the purchaser the capitalist erects one
more costly house one lot In presenting his hill,
ne not only charges Tor the lot and house erected
has sold to another party. This latter charge ia re-
sisted.
JULIAN I. WRIGHT.