The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1908-03-17


he received some time ago. Stillings made
the. following reply:
ofice Of the Public Printer.
Washington March 2 1908.
Sir: I return herewith the entire re-
port and accompanying papers, dated
February %. 1908. of Mr. w. S. Rossiter,
on the Government Printing Office.
have itemized certain of my answers
to Mr.. ROSTERS report which are for
warded herewith.
The report of your investigating COM
mittee insinustes certain irregularities on
the part OF the Public Printer, and al
though making no specific charges. lays
great stress on his payment of 81 go per
week to The Audit System for the prepa-
ration Of an inventory, which inventory
the Investigators failed to locate, although
they obtained evidence that It had been
paid for; this entire charge relating to
inventories is easily explained. and trust
will prove TO you the inability OF the
investigators 10 grasp in so short a pc
Rod the salient features in the operations
OF so large an institution. or to submit
just report as TO my official actions.
Any committee however capable or
earnestly DESTROYS of making an impair
tial report on such a condition Of affairs
as now exists in the Government Printing
Office, would be unable 10 satisfactorily
perform such a duty with any degree of
exactness or benefit, from the fact that
the readjustment Of the affairs of the en-
tire office is at this time just about four
ffths completed and the remaining one
fifth on finishing touches would unity
and make consistent conditions which
would at present appear to persons IN
acquainted with the plans and purposes
Of the completed system. 10 be chaotic,
cumbersome. and void OF good manage
ment
Not JustifabIe.
Were the system completed and in
operation, and such conditions as are al
legged in the report were found 10 exist
then condemnation Of the system, of the
organizers. and Of the Public Printer
would be justihable. but not otherwise
Within eight months or a year the
organization completed along the lines
laid down would result in a model plant
both as TO equipment and discipline. and a
cost-keeping system OF moderate expense
and understandable value.
do not desire TO disparage the work
of the Investigators Their findings are
in the main doubtless justihable from
their standpoint, but my contention is
that such an investigation develops merely
casual personal opinions, whereas facts
are what you desire
The statement that an annual expendi-
ture OF S1f7,9oO24 viii be required ito
maintain the cost analysis established
by The Audit System" is open 70 ques-
ton, as / do not think when il Is fully
established ii will cost so much
However the comparison Of the cost
OF the new system with the expenditure
covering all similar work under the old
system of $45, 23S" is absurd. There never
has been a cOst-analysis system in the
Government Printing Office such as is
inquired 10 cost N47. 9OO.24 The present
cost-keeping system, which it is plainly
admitted by the investigating committee
possesses some merits and is principally
TO be criticised upon the score that in
an attempt to secure all classes of detail
the amount Of labor entailed upon each
employe for the purpose of recording nee
eSsary facts and the amount Of labor re-
quired for subsequent tabulati0ns were
80 great as to make the system almost
prOhbitive." as compared with the old
method of charging, which the report
states was rudimentaTy, incomplete, and
doubtless inaccurate" is, TO say the least.
inappropriate and susceptible Of deduc-
tons unfavorable TO the committee.
Whether it is cheaper 20 expend ap-
proXimately Sl47 .30O.24 70 maintain a sys-
tenn possessing some merits" and criti-
cised only on account Of it's attempting to
do TOO much. or 10 eXpend approximately
$4,000 on a so-caIled system" which IS
stated as ''rudimentary, incomplete. and
doubtless inaccurate" I leave TO your
judgment.
Become More Expert,
But it should be stated that as the per
sons working upon the system become
more expert and as experience teaches
what operations can be simplifed or
eliminated, the present expenditures for
the system will diminish until the cost of
maintaining the same will perhaps be
double what was expended for the former
unreliable work; the apparent cumber-
someness will finally be worked out into
Il simple but accurate system.
Although the cost OF installing The
Audit System in the office is considered
by the committee 10 have been quite ex-
pensive much more so than the cost OF
similar installations in commercial firms.
the comparisons made seem to be unfair
on the face Of them when comparing a
complex manufacturing establishment,
such as the Government Printing Office.
with manufacturing concerns whose out
put or product runs in direct lines or
channels and whose pay roll is TO a large
extent regulated by piecework
Your committee has severely criticised nv
policy in allowing The Audit System 10
bid upon any supplies for the office: while
endeavorinS to cover this point in the
appended specific statements. I may saw
briefly that my action has been governed
by a desire to expidite the work of The
Audit System so as to occasion the least
expense 20 the government; and that SurI
purchases were made of them. outside
Of loose-leaf ledger sheets. binders. and
possibly few emergency purchases
caused by the exigencies OF the service.
have been subject TO competition. and
have no knowledge of any injustice done
10 other bidders thereby.
The majority Of the purchases made of
the Suffolk Distributing Company have
been for paper for which they SUBJ
United bids and upon which they were
awarded contract by The the Joint Com
mittee on Printing in January. 1907, COW
ering The annual period commencing
March l, 1907, and terminating February
%. 1903. This is a matter outside OF my
jurisdiction, and Of which had no
knowledge until the bids were opened and
awards made; any other purchases have
been for minor supplies.
I am inclined 70 agree with the COM
mittee that In view OF the recent events |
Il would have been much better not 10
have purchased anything whatever of The