The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-11
Members Of the Board Are Indignant
by Mr.. Rappaport.
ASKED FOR EVIDENCE
CHELTENHAM PRESS REPRESENTA-
TIVE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY.
Charges Made Reflected Upon State
Omcials and Reputable business
Reinstatement for Board.

Members of the State Printing Board are
indignant at the reiteration Of the charges
and i~nsinuations of the Cheltenham Press
that there was collision in the awarding OF
the contract for the State printing to w. b.
Burford and intimate that some OF the ale
cations verge close on the libelous. An aft
ernoon paper yesterday published the fol-
lowing:
Representatives of the Cheltenham Press
are alleging that the State Printing Board
Is fixed and that collision is being prac-
ticed in letting out the bids for the printing
done for the State. They are claiming hat
the board knows what is coming before the
ting the benefit of open competition. but
that it is being made the victim of fraud
and scandal by members of the State Print
ing Board. Mr.. Rappaport appeared be-
fore the board as counsel for the Chelten-
ham Press and asked that his clients be
given fair play in the game for the printing
contracts. He claimed that there was a
secret understanding between the different
firms offering bids and the State board and
that the matter Of opening bids is merely
a formality and that the results were
already known before hand"
At the Statehouse yesterday the following
statement was made for the State Printing
Board:
When the bids for the State printing
contract were opened and considered by the
board every bidder was present or repre-
sented before the board. The tabulation of
the bids showed that the Cheltenham Press
had bid only on the printing of the reports
OF the Supreme and Appellate Courts and
that this company's bid was 500 higher than
the bid of Mr.. Burford. Before the contract
was awarded to the lowest bidder Mr.. Rap
DanOrr- as the attorney for the Chelfenham
Press, gave evidences Of anger and discom-
future and insinuated that there had been
collision in the bidding. Governor Durbin,
for the board, asked Mr.. Ra%ppaport what
evidence ne had TO support his charge. He
said he would produce the evidence If
given time. Governor Durbin replied that
the time and place for the evidence was
then and there. Mr.. Rappaport said it
would a him three or four hours to sub
nit his evidence. The Governor assured
him that he would be given six hours If
necessary and that the board would con-
tinue in session all day to give ample OPP
portunity to make his case. Mr.. Rappaport
not only declined to take advantage of this
offer of the board, but also declined to file
a formal profess against the awarding of
the contract TO Mr.. Burford, the lowest bid
der.
These charges that are given circulation
reflect on several responsible and reputable
business firms OF long standin in Indian
apolis and also on the Governor, secretary
OF state and state auditor, who comprise
the State Printing Board. They should be
s~ubstantiated by evidence other than the
mere assertions of Mr.. Rappaport and a
disappointed bidder. If there was collision
that enabled Mr.. Burford to make the low-
est bid the Cheltenham Press, as one Of the
bidders. must have been involved, for Mr..
Burford's bid on the part of the printing
on which the Cheltemham Press submitted
a bid was not only lower than those Of the
other bidders, but was 800 lower than the
bid Of the Cheltenham Press"