PUBLIC PRINTING.
The House now proceeded to the consideration of the special order, viz.: Mr. Heffren's bill [17] to give the public printing to the lowest responsible bidder, and to abolish the office of Public Printer; and his joint resolution to give the public printing to Thomas A. Goodwin, at 25 per cent below the present legal rates.
Mr. FRASIER moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question.
Mr. HEFFREN demanded the yeas and nays; and there was a second-yeas 46, nays 42:
So the main question was ordered.
Mr. HEFFREN asked, pro forma, to be excused from voting, to enable him to say: This is the first time in my experience in legisla page: 290[View Page 290]tion when the friends of a measure have been cut off by the gag from making their amendments to perfect it. We are ready with our amendments. This is not a party measure. Four years ago we voted for it, when the Democrats were in the majority. And we have a memorial on our tables, by a man not of the Democratic party, offering to do the public printing at 25 per cent, below the prices established by law. If this bill is indefinitely postponed that is an end of it so far as this session is concerned. What then will the people say of a Legislature that will go on paying $5,000 to $10,000 more than the public printing is offered to be done for by a practical man?
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew (pro forma.) This is not a party measure with me; but I am free to admit that I have some prejudice against the gentleman proposing to do this printing. If I dare vote against public economy, I could do so most willingly in this case; for I do not believe this man ought to have anything at the hands of either party.
Mr. FRASIER-pro forma. I shall vote for postponement, because there has been a Select Committee appointed of practical printers, to report a bill cutting down the rates to the lowest living point, and on that bill gentlemen will have an opportunity to vote for retrenchment and reform in this matter, if they wish.
Mr. STOTSEN BERG-pro forma. The very day the Republican majority here proposed to elect a State Printer, I offered a resolution to postpone it till we could mature this bill: and I referred to the gross frauds connected with the public printing which ought to be corrected, and which were pointed out in his paper by the very man whom they were desirous of electing. I did this because I knew that, after he was elected, the majority would never give up the spoils. Now they have got their printer, they are not going to give him up. But the people will remember the matter. ("Consart.") I call for the reading of the bill.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. SHERMAN-pro forma. I vote for indefinite postponement upon principle-upon the belief, that to the victors belong the spoils. Two years ago, when the gentleman came here to abolish this office, after the election of John C. Walker, I then voted against it; and I shall vote against it now, more especially, because the printer we have elected is under a written pledge to submit to any restrictions which his friends may prescribe. I voted against abolishing this office two years ago, believing that the time was not far distant when we would have control of it; and now we have got it, it seems to me to come with a very bad grace from that side, the moment it falls into our hands, to ask us to abolish it. I distinctly say to the House, that if I believed that the abolishing of this office would result in saving $10,000 to the State, I would not do it. It belongs to the Republican party.
Mr. JENKINSON-pro forma. I don't care who does this work, but the question is, who does it cheapest and best. The sentiment of the gentleman from Laporte is wrong. I hope the day will come when that sentiment will be abolished. I will vote for anything here that will lighten the burdens of taxation. I am willing the Republicans shall have the offices. My object is economy.
Mr. PACKARD-pro forma. I am a member of the Committee on Printing; and if report is expected from that Committee it is a very poor source of expectation.
Mr. GRESHAM-pro forma. At an early day of the session I introduced a resolution for inquiring into the abuses of the office of the public printer. I have been unfaltering in my course. I have been from the first in favor of abolishing this office, but the House have all the time refused to let our committee have this bill, knowing that we would have reported it back and recommended its passage. When the gentleman from Laporte comes in here and endorses the sentiment, that to the victors belong the spoils, he endorses a doctrine that I can not. It is preposterous. When it comes to that, sir, your government will be rottenness, and there will be no more hope for the patriot. This printing business is purely mechanical, and there is no reason why we should make a State officer to do the public printing.
Mr. CASON-pro forma. I have always been an advocate of reform in all our State matters. I understand that this bill has been introduced for the purpose of placing the printing of the State in such a position, that men who have peculated upon the State, and run off with their gains, may have the privilege of entering into competition with other men for the purpose of continuing their peculations. For these reasons I shall vote for the postponement. He withdrew his application to be excused.
Mr. DOBBINS. Two years ago I voted against abolishing the office of State printer, because there was no provision of law authorizing its abolishment. Now there is a condition that the Legislature may abolish it, which presents a widely different case.
Mr. CRAIN-pro forma. I believe that the letting out this printing will cost a great deal more in the result than the present arrangement. I have not the slightest doubt it. He withdrew his motion to be excused.
Mr. FISHER. In all my life, which has not been a short one, I have been much engaged in superintending public work; and my experience is, that, unless you can have some person to superintend the movement of the work under a contract, the State will be the loser from beginning to end.
Mr. ROBBINS. Democrats here have not been opposed to this measure in years gone by. I recollect a bill passed the Senate four, years ago, to abolish this office. I think we might as well have a stone mason for the State, as
