Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1908-02-20
LOOKS LIKE A lob.

We commend Senator Halsey for the I
introduction of a resolution inquiring
into the cost of and the causes of the /
delay in the printing and publication in 1
condensed and permanent form of the /.
debates OF the late Constitutional Con- /
vention, as ordered by that body. Some /.
good and sufficient explanation must be
forthcoming for hardness that is I'M
explained, bewildering to the mind of
the plain everyday man. 1t took the
historian, Gibbon, twenty years to com
plete the narrative of the Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire; but his was
monumental work, colossal in design
and portentous in execution and en-
braced transactions of mankind through
countless centuries. What Senator
Halsey calls for is the account of the
slowness during seven years in stitching
together a moderate number of not
overlong speeches and running the man
uscript through a rapidly revolving
modern Hoe press. When the order
was given the Convention was pleased
with the prospect of presenting some
thing fresh to the people. Any further
delay will give the compilation the
musty odor of antiquity, with the stiff
ness of cold storage superadded. Rich
mond Journal.
During the Fall of 1905 we made
some inquiries about this same ques-
ton of the printing of the debates of
the late Constitutional Convention. We
made such searching inquiries that they
excited the wrath of the Hon, Carter
Glass, who was chairman of the Com
mittee on Reporting and Printing"
which committee was authorized by the
Convention to have the debates edited
and printed.
In the Lynchburg News of the 9Th of
September, 1905, Mr.. Glass said:
''The editing of the debates by Mr..
Lindsay was finished long ago and the
contract for printing awarded. The
delay in finishing the work has been oc-
casioned by the system adopted of send
ing the proofs to members for revision
of their remarks. Alterations of the
text have been numerous and hardness
IN returning proofs to printer the rule;
but the delay, while annoying, is not
costing the State one penny.
The contract was made with Mr.. Lind
say about the first of October, 1902
Three years after the making of the
contract, Mr.. Glass explains the cause
of delay in the above unsatisfactory
way. What right had the Committee
on Reporting and Printing to delay the
publication of the debates by sending
the proofs to members for revision?
There was an official stenographer who
made official reports of the debates and
the debates were to be printed as he
had reported. No member had right
to alter the text of the official report of
the debates, after the Convention had
adjourned sine die.
Now, two and half more years have
passed and the debates are not vet
printed. What excuse will Mr.. Glass
now offer?
If our Richmond contemporary will
take the trouble to investigate, we be-
lieve it will find that a minority of the
Committee on Reporting and Printing
met and awarded the contract for edit
ing the debates, and that they gave it
to one of their own number. Then, the
Journal will find that the order of the
said Committee awarding the contract
was afterwards violated in two or more
particulars, as shown by the Auditors
Reports as to payments of warrants for
the work. 1t took the Convention one
year to make the Constitution; and five
and half years have already been con-
sumed in editing the debates, and they
are not yet printed.
@S$