The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-08-26
State Accountant May Investl-
gate State Printer Accounts.
Mr.. McNeal Says He Finds Many
Discrepancies.
CHARGES NOT UNIFORM
These Run Back to Administra-
tiOn of E. II. Snow.
Mr.. Clark, Who Has Just Retir-
ed Invites Investigation.

There is boundless trouble ahead for
State Accountant ]. c. Gafford, if the
rl1nnors of an examination of the state
nrinter's accounts for the past three
years materialize.
Ex-State Printer George A. Clark says
that he will welcome an investigation
of his accounts, and that if he has made
any over-charges or under-charges ne
would like to have the thing straighten-
ed up. As Mr. Clark will ask the next
legislature for a deficiency appropria-
tion of about $1,000, it is of course to the
advantage of the state to have the eX-
animation made soon.
No charges are made against Mr.
Clark. and no evidence has been found
which shows that the state printing Of
fice under Mr.. Clark's management, col
Iected more from the state than the law
allows.
State Printer 7. A. McNeal, however,
has stirred up considerable agitation Dy
the little private investigation he has
been making for the purpose of finding
out what system" of charges the Tor
Iner state printers have used. MI Nc
Neal is trying to find out what the state
has been paying for certain jobs in the
past so that he can compare the saving
under the new system of state owner
ship. However, the work has assumed
such immense proportions that MI NC
Neal is willing to turn it over the state
accountant provided Governor Hoch de-
cides that the natter is worth an in
Vestigation.
Mr., McNeal stated recently that he
had discovered that one state printer
charged SO for certain job and an
other charged S42 for what was appar-
emily the same work This was taken
by some to be a shot at ex-State
Printer Clark Mr. McNeal says it
wasn't.
I talked to Mr.. Clark about it, said
Mr.. McNeal, ''and explained to him
that the S42 charge was made under the
administration of J. K. Hudson, while
the $40 charge was Clark's. Mr.. Clark
then admitted that the SO charge was
probably an error in measurement. and
that 1t should have been somewhat
higher It is likely that errors have
been made in amounts paid by the state
at various times. As I understand it,
the custom has been for the state print
er to make out list of the things he
has printed and the cost of the same,
which has been submitted to the secre-
tary of state. The secretary of states
office is supposed to do the work of
checking up, but 1 doubt very much
whether it was customary to go into the
investigation very thoroughly. The
state printers bill was probably accept
ed, and marked o. K.
In going through the state printers
accounts for some years past, 1 have
found mary curious discrepancies
which are hard to explain. In the
printing of the examination questions
for the state superintendent, there
should not be much variation in the
cost of doing the work. or the cost of
material. The same subjects are COW
cred by the examina tions, and about the
same number of questions given. But
I find that some state printers have
collected three or four times as much
for the same number of copies of the
examination questions.
"I don't know that it would be pos
sible for the state accountant to go
into this thing in detail, but 1 suppose
that the secretary of state will have on
file all the requisitions which were
passed on by the printing board, and
which ought to show just the character
of the job ordered. At least it would
be possible for the accountant to check
over the reports and books which have
been issued, and which show for them
selves exactly what was done. Half
of the work done probably consisted of
these reports and books"
All of the items of the printing ac-
count are given in the annual report
of the secretary of state. While this
report ooes not show the measure
ments of the job of work charged for
or the amount charged for composition
and press work separately, it shows
the cost of labor and the cost of ma
terial used. The state bought its own
material, and then paid the printer a
specified schedule for the printing and
binding.
Taking the item of examination
questions. the reports from the time
f. H. Snow was state printer down to
Clark's administration, show that in
lots of 500 the priced varied from
$3.50 to $43.57 for labor alone. In 500
lots one state printer charged S125I
and another SS2.24.
For q lot of 1900, one printer
charged S9.01 for the labor, and for a
lot of 1,100 another printer charged
S22.82 for the labor.
One printer charged $1423 for a
5000 run, and another charged s3742
for $500 run.
1t is possible to pick out a good
many similar figures which seem to
show discrepancies. OF course there
may be some explanation for the dis
crepancies, but it would require the
services of an expert accountant to
figure the whole thing out
SO FAR the matter of an investigation
of the charges by Accountant Cafford
has not been decided upon 1t is nos
sible that if the state should go into
an investigation of its state printer
bills and its accounts for the official
state publications it would find the
situation as interesting as the cftv of
Topeka did some time ago when it
started a similar investigation.
If 1T should be discovered that the
state has been overcharged, the state
would have ground for recovery for
three years in the past. Previous to
that time the claims have outIawed. if
they ever existed.