Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-07-17
STATE BINDER SCANDAL
Full Explanation Of Lafe Younf's
Overcharses For State
Binding.
Young Says Officers Ordered
Documents Sewed So He
sewed Them.
Charged Accordingly .. Expert
Says Law Would Not Allow
This.
pecial to the Times-Republican.

Special to the Times Republican.
Des Moines, July 17.-In view of the
revival of the state binder controversy,
by reason of the filing of report by Mr..
Skinner. an accountant, showing that
there have been alleged over-cnarges
IN the state work under the administ
ton of Secretary of State Dobson while
Mr.. Lafe Young was state binder the
sum of the overcharges amounting to
S4,IS933, a plain statement of the case
as presented by both sides. will prove
Interesting to the people of Iowa The
controversy is in its final analysis. one
between the state and the state bin6er
and state officers in general, bu. the
acute phase of the question is strictly
between A. H. Dawson, secretary of the
executive council, and Lafe Young,
former state binder and present owner
of the Daily Capital. The alleged over
charges cover period of two years,
and relate to the charges for binding
certain we'll known state documents.
are two divisions of the question-one
relates to the putting together of small
pamphlets, of twelve or sixteen pages
where the first page is sort of title
page and the whole is printed as one
sheet or part of a sheet, the other
relates to the manner of putting togeth-
er large documents Involving the gath
ering of many signatures or groups of
pages and either stitching or sewing
them before the cover is put on. The
code of Iowa makes distinctions, which
anyone may understand by referring TO
the same, and the report of MIR. Skinner
goes the length of constituting the mean
ing of different clauses of the code and
applying to the bills audited and paid
for binding the test which the account
ant believes to be the true one. BY this
process the conclusion is reached that
the state has been overcharged and the
attorney general is advised to bring suit
to recover the sum set forth.
Mr.. A. II. Dawson. secretary of the
executive council. knows more .ibout the
question than anybody. He said:
THE lastlegislature had before it some
of these matters referred to in the spe-
cial report. to my certain knowiedge
was called before the committee of the
house and asked II knew of any rea-
son why certain bills should be passed.
This office. the executive council, was
interested in several bills. One of these
was senate file 125 which provided for
taking the order book for printing out
of the secretary of states office and
placing 1t In my office. and also gave
to the executive council power to audit
the bills instead of the secretary of
state. When asked If knew of any
reason why there should be opposition
to the bill showed the committee some
OF the pamphlets and bills referred to in
the report. The bill passed the senate
and was unanimously recommended for
passage by the house committee on
printing. We were informed by the sift-
ing committee that while some of our
bills would be recommended we could
rot get this one. But am satisfied that
we could have passed 1t over the sitting
committee. and regret it was not done
l can say to the credit OF Secretary
Dobson. however, that he used his in
tiuence to have the change in the matter
of auditing made.
There is a good deal being said about
this report to mislead.' he continued
The question of stitching or sewing is
only small part. 1 should estimate
that half the items referred to concern
the other question of making a charge
for cover when there is no cover. In
February, 1899, the state binder stitched
a pamphlet for the superintendent of
public instruction on Washington and
the Flag and for 10000 he charged $50.
That was correct. There was no cover
on the pamphlet. The first page was a
title page. but it was all one sheet Then
the state binder got onto the fact that
he could make more by charging this
up as a paper covered pamphlet, and the
bills which followed %erc :aade up on
this principle. For instance the Bird
day pamphlet of sixteen pages all one
sheet printed in 1899 cost $50 for 10000
copies. when the charge should have
been the same as for the Washington
pamphlet. They are exactly alike. The
other Pamphlets where this question
arises are in the same category. III there
was paper cover put on separately it
would be different. but where the first
page is part of the sheet and folded in
With it, there can be no excuse for
charging for binding in paper covers
These matters We're all before the legis-
lative committee and We're considered
by them. That committee reported
unanimously in favor OF the bill to
change the method of auditing such
bills Pressure was brought TO bear on
the sitting committee to suppress the
bill and it was done that the method of
overcharging might continue
On his own behalf Lafe Young is just
as insistent that he has followed custom
and Law and that by no possible twisting
of the accounts can he be held to have
gone wrong. This controversy would
never have come up" he said, but for
the fact that Davidson, secretary of the
executive council who i. an enemy of
mine. is angry becaure he failed to get
through bill in the last legislature
placing this matter Of printing and
binding entirely in his hands. But there
is nothing new in the report. It has all
been gone over. The legislature has had
the controversy all before 1t and refused
to do what Davidson desired ehould be
done. But this would not excuse me II
was accused Of any wrong doing, Mind