Year: 1866

We neglected at the time 70 answer An eoi'
torial our cotemporary published some two
weeks since, and we do SO now only to cor
rect several mistatements to which our atten-
ton has been called.


We alluded to the city printing simply to
show the inconsistency of party which last
year insisted on giving it to the lowest bidder,
and this year elects q city printer and pays
twice the amount to him that it would cost by
contract to publish in all the city papers.


Referring TO our editorial, the editor
Of the Constitution says:


ssHe says the city ought to publish in all
three Of the city papers and that it could be
done at less expense than 10 now proposed to
pay to one The council has already ordered
printing TO be done by two Of the city papers,
one English and one German, the only one
that is left out in the cold is the Gate CITY =


WE'LL now if the City Council publish their
proceedings and ordinsnces, do they publish
for the information Of the citizens or for the
benefits of the proprietors Of the city papers
II for the former purpose, what proprie.y in
publishing in two city papers and leaving the
readers of the third. who are more numerous
than both of the others, out in the cold? II
the publication is made for the benefit Of the
party papers and not Of the public, the course
taken may be well enough, and the more the
City Council pay the proprietors Of those pa
pers the better for them.


The editor of the Constitution makes the
following charge against the County Treasurer
and the Gate CGfg:


We no.s desire to call public attention to a
fact which serves to illustrate the dishonest
knavery of j. b. Howell in now advocating
the giving OF the city printing to the lowest
bidder Last fall the board of county super
visors Of this county passed {, resolution which
directed County Treasurer Lowry to pnblish
the county delinquent TAX list IN the county
paper which would print it for the lowest
price. Having sent Us notice OF the reso-
luton and requested us to make him rropo-
sition, we did so and our offer was to publish
the list for nine and three quarters cents for
each description Of property offered for sale.
After the time had expired for receiving bids
he sent us word, on a Saturday that he would
call at our office on the following Monday, and
see us about printing the list. Ours was the
lowest bid But when he came here on Mon
dav. he did not call on MS, bnt went to the
Gate Ciiy office, aud gave Howell the print
ing, at the price OF twenty cents a descrIp-
ton More than double the sum We offered
to print it for Howell took that contract,
aud received from the tax payers OF the eity.
the money for it, which was more than double
what they would have had to pay under our
proposition. Let, Howell or Lowry deny this
statement if they dare.


The records of the Board of Supervisors
for Lee county will brand the foregoing state
ment as reckless falsehood, by showing that
we received only between nine and ten cents,
(the same as the Constitution offered to pub
lish it for) instead of twenty cents, a descrip
ton.


The statute of the State allowed twenty
cents per description, but the editor Of the
Constitution cut under; and yet now has ths
face to claim that because his friends are il
power they should give him twice as much fol
city printing as we propose to do the same
for.


If the city Council were elected to vote
money unnecessarily and in extravagan
amounts to support party press, as our co
temporary seems to think, then it is all IL
character. But if on the contrary the objec
is to give publicity to the proceedings, ordi
nances, &c, then it becomes the sworn dut,
of the members of the Council and agents o
the city, to secure the widest circulation OF
the most reasonable terms, and not to Civ
one paper twice as much as it would cos
them to have the publications made in three





LIE Dnu Afo,nas Redasier noticing the at