The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-15
WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK
Justice for the Editor.
To the Editor Of The Journal,

1t having been intimated in a recent is
sue Of T h e J OUT IN that the on1is
sion Of Hennepln county from the list OF
counties in the code was my fault I de-
sire to explain how the mistake occurred.
In my copy for the printers, Hennepin
county was included audit appeared In the
first proofs Of the printers. In making
some necessary corrections the printers
took out a line or slug including Henne-
pin, Houston and Hubbard counties and
neglected to put it back. If I had been
the proofreader it would have been my
duty to have detected the error in the re-
vised proofs, but I was not. Owing to
the short time in which it was necessary
to rush the code thru the press it was i'm
possibles for me, or any one person., to
read all the proof. The printing COM
mission, recognizing this fact, employed
expert proofreaders for that purpose
who, with the printers, are alone respon-
sible for such typographical errors as
may appear. An editor who is denied
an opportunity to read his own proof is
placed in a sorry plight before the pub
lie when errors appear, but it was more
important to the state that: the code
should be out March 1, when it went into
effect, than that it should be absolutely
free from typographical errors, and I
therefore felt it my duty not to delay
publication by attempting to read the
proof myself.
i The proof of law books like the code is.
ordinarily read three times. The proof:
of the code was only read once, very hur
riedly, by the printers, and once by the
proofreaders employed by the state. I'm
der normal conditions three months
would be taken to print such a book. The
Inflated code was necessarily rushed thru
the press in five weeks. Under such cir
cumstances it is really remarkable that
it is so free from errors. Typographical
errors in the published code are greatly
/ to be regretted, but are not SO disastrous
as generally supposed. The printed
book is not the law, but only prinaa facte
evidence of the law. The law IS the en-
rolled bill in the office Of the secretary Of
state, and if the enrolled bill Is correct it
is not vitiated by any defect in its publ
cation AS Hennepin county Is in the
enrolled bill it cannot conceivably be af
fected by the omission in the published
code. $685.. .- ..
But why, it may be asked, was the
code printed so hurriedly? The sole
cause was the printers strike. Owing
to the strike the Pioneer Press was un-
able to carry out it's contract to print the
code and the printing commission, after
futile efforts; to have it printed out of the
state, was finally compelled to surrender
to the strikers; and award the contract to
a firm employing only union men-most
of them strikers from the West Publish
ing company. Unfortunately, this was
not done until the middle Of January,
when it was too late to secure salts
factory piece Of work.
1t has been charged in some quarters
that was responsible for the delay, but
there was not the slightest foundation for
this charge. I had the copy Of the text
and index ready for the printers in Octo-
Der, and my notes JAM l. exactly as
promised in the specifications on which
the printers made their bids. From the
time the first line of the code was set un.
til the last the printers did not lack fol
copy a single instant. Unless I am II
some way responsible for the printers
strike am In no way responsible for the
delay. Mark B. Dunnell.
Editor Revised Laws 1905