The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-10-18

L
was 1888 lof VI
Thus it will be seen that the
| actual cash saving to the
| state for the four years under
| state ownership iS.....-..... $101,1SI .0l
| Doesn't Show Real Saving.
This, however. does not show the
real saving to the state. Since taking
charge of the office on July 1, 1905
practically the entire plant has been
renewed Its physical efficiency has
been increased by putting in improv-
led modern machinery at least 90 per
cent. AS the institutions of the state
nave grown and new departments have
ceen created, there have necessarily
printing required. This will be shown
by the statement of the number of
acquisitions filed during each fiscal
year.
The total number of acquisitions for
state printing was as follows:
From July 1, 1906 to July 1, 1905. SIC
From July l, 1906 to July l. 1907. 2,196
From July |, 1907 to July 1, 1908 8,... 2.30S
From July 1, 1908 to July l. 1907. ,621
he number OF acquisitions allowed
during the present fiscal year
from July 1, to Oct. 1, is.... 679
During the first three months of
the last fiscal year the number
1t will be noted by these that the
number of acquisitions for state print
ing during the last biennial period has
Increased IrlIIe more imam u per
cent, as compared with the number
during the first biennial period. This,
however, does not show the real in
crease, because the state institutions
on account of their growth require
larger amounts of printing called for
in the separate acquisitions. AS an
illustration:
The state board of health formerly
printed 500 bulletins per month. The
demand for these has increased until
NO Ct to Of no iS int
ing 5000 per month.
The university four years ago found
5000 catalogues sufficient for its pur-
poses. It now requires 1880.
The Agricultural college catalogues
have increased proportionately.
Two new institutions have been
added, one at Pittsburg, and one at
Hays.
The extension of the work of the
superintendent of instruction has been
so great the printing for that depart
ment has very nearly doubled.
The same is true of the Office of the
attorney general.
Capacity of Plant Increased.
1t is a conservative estimate to say
the increase in printing for the last
biennial period over the amount
called for in the first biennial period
under state ownership is 25 per cent.
Mr. T. B. Brown, foreman of the COM
posing room, who has been with the
plant under all the state printers for
the past 1 5 or 16 years, says that the
capacity of the plant is fully so per
cent greater than it was under the old
state printers, but that even then the
state printers managed to put in at
least 10 per cent of their time doing 1
work outside of the state work. 1t is,
therefore, certainly a very conServa-
tive estimate to say that the state dur
ing the four years that it has owned
the plant has done 25 per cent more |
work than was done during the four
years prior to that time.
I, therefore, feel perfectly safe in
saying that if the same amount of
printing had been done. during the /
four years prior to state ownership
(that has been. done during the first
four years of state ownership 1t
would have cost the state $485, 5,233.76 |
instead of $2S7.0O0.OO. which was the
actual cost; making a saving for the |
four years of $19S, 1886.
OF the $137, appropriated by |
the last legislature for printing, SILL !
9S6.00 were appropriated for equip |
ment, leaving $126,000.00 for printers |
salary, labor, stock and incidentals. 1t |
is only fair to say, however, that the I
appropriations for state printing. To |
carry the plant through the biennial
period will require an additional ap-
of $4,000. This was the
amount 1 asked for in addition to
what I got, and I did not ask for
dollar more than was needed. This
would make the total amount requir-
ed for state printing for the biennial
period ending June 80, 1911, $148,-
10000.
This plant can turn out more work
within a given time than could have
been turned out by the old plant, be-
fore state ownership, with the same
number of employees. If it cost the
state, as it did, $196.000.00 for work
done the state during the two years
prior to state ownership, and If the
state printer put in only nine-tenths
Of his time on state work, it is safe
TO say that the amount of work that
will be done during this biennial per-
od at a cost to the state of $148,00O
would have cost under the old system
at least $250,000; so that the saving
to the state for the biennial period
ending June 80, 1911, as compared
with what it would have cost the
state under the old system at a con-
;ervative estimate, will be 100000.
Very Respectfully.
T. A. McNEAL1,
State Printer.