Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-07-30
CONTRACTORS SIDE
EXPLAINS BILL SENT IN FOR
PRINTING SCHEDULES.
Payment Had Been Withheld Pending
an Inquiry Into Alleged Ex-
cessive Cost.

Mr. Thomas w Cadick, manager of the
Globe Printing Company, which holds GER
tain printing contracts under the District
government, has submitted to Commission
er West statement with regard to the bill
rendered for printing machine street sweep
ing schedules to the street cleaning depart
ment Superintendent Stuter Of the street
cleaning department withheld his approval
Of the bill, which was for $50. He stated
to the Commissioners that the same work
was done last year through an arrangement
with local printing house for $64. Inc
work was not then included in the general
printing contract.
The charge made by the Globe company
was strictly in accord with the contract
rates, but Superintendent Stutler said an
allowance she lid be made because certain
of the schedules were exactly similar with
the exception of one or two minor changes
He did not believe the company should
charge full rates for Setting up the entire
form. when only one or two changes were
necessary.
Commissioner West took the matter up
with the Globe Printing Company. and had
a personal talk with Mr.. Cadfck. The
statement submitted today Is the formal
explanation Of the firm. and will probably
end the matter, the Commissioners are
bound by the terms of the contract, and
If there has been a loss to the District over
the private arrangements made last year 1t
Is one OIL tllOSe lnclQenlS OF municipal gov
eminent which cannot be foreseen, 1t is
claimed. as contract prices are invariably
lower than those quoted in private agree
mentS.
The Matter Explained.
Mr.. Cadick says:
referring to our conversation Of the
9th instant in reference to our bill against
the District for printing machine cleaning
schedules, will say that We claim this bill
&c, IL, .;<S dan until
contract for miscellaneous printing. conSe-
Quently the question of what We paid our
men does not enter into the question. How
ever, since you have raised the question we
will state that we did actually set the type
for each Of these schedules, as our atten-
ton was not called to the fact that sche6-
ule one and schedule five were practically
the same, and for us to have found this out
would have been necessary for us to have
had each schedule compared with the other
by copy. which would have cost us con-
siderably more than setting the type.
We claim that it is unfair to compare
our price under this contract with the
price that you paid for the same work two
years ago. for the reason that a great
many Of the orders that we fill for the
District we suffer a loss on. and the Dis
trfct never reimburses US for that loss.
We also claim that the District had no
right to give out this item as 1t was a part
OF our contract, and If the District should
select all Of the items which pay US a
for those items on which we lost money
1t would be manfestly unfair.
Comparison Instituted.
1--WE desire to call your attention to speci-
flcations for class . blank forms. after ev-
cry item of which you will find the follow
ing: Ruled and printed on one or both
Sides 1t stands to reason that the con-
tractor making up his mind on these items
must necessarily take into consideration
the fact that some of these blanks are
printed on one side and some on both sides,
and it would be just as fair to that con-
contractor to pick out an item Of say 25.-
900 blanks ruled and printed one side,
and ask US. or any other printer other than
the contractor. to bid that special Jot,
and then compare that price with the con-
| tract price. assuming that because you
could find a lower bid than your contract
price that the contractor must be gouging
the District. and 1t certainly would not be
fair to that contractor to pick out the work
on which he could make money and give 1t
| to some one else and compel him 10 print
all the blank forms that were ruled and
printed on both Sides