THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE
The Public Printing---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 12, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 151, BOTTOM OF FIRST COLUMN.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order, being the consideration of Mr. O'Brien's State Printing and Binding bill [S. 257] with the majority and minority reports thereon - the latter recommending the passage of Mr. Beardsley's bill [S. 245], to let the public printing to the lowest bidder, with sundry amendments. The question being on concurring in the report of the minority -
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence said: These are unquestionably quite as important bills as will come before the Senate. I have noticed that it is difficult to make such amendments as ought to be made in open Senate, and I believe it preferable to refer these bills to some Committee. I believe these reports and bills ought to go to the Judiciary Committee, so that they may suggest such amendments as may be proper, and so believing I make the motion now to refer these reports and bills to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GLESSNER. My judgment is that we ought to decide in the Senate which system shall be adopted. One bill proposes to establish a printing office by the State, and the other to let it out on contract. It appears to me that we ought to have a test vote in the Senate, and after that refer the bill whic provides for the system adopted by the Senate to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SLEETH suggested the reading of Mr. O'Brien's bill [S. 257] and it was read by the secretary.Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. President: This matter has been before the Committee since the first of the present session - I might say since the commencement of the special session. It is known that the State has been largely swindled in the matter of public printing, for that is a matter of public record in the courts of justice. In examination of the subject I find that the State has been swindle by raised vouchers, and there is a suspicion that the State has been swindled by false affidavits. I believe the courts acquitted the accused of the charge - and the State has been swindled in the measurement of the amount of printing done, and been swindled by parties getting orders for printing through here, done at the expense of the State, with the State's material, which is as useless as dirt, and which has cost the State thousands of dollars. I refer particularly to the Adjutant General's report, which cost the State some eighty odd thousand dollars.
I am no printer and don't profess any science in that direction but I am a practical business man and I know that when you put the business of the State in the hands of private parties you are liable to have advantage taken of the State, especially when you allow a man to act upon that which he is familiar with and that which no officer of the page: 457[View Page 457] State is familiar with. This bill proposes no price except the usual prices for hands - under it the State simply pays for the work actually done. I have letters from the Secretary of State of Ohio; and from other States where they have been swindled under the contract system. The only way is to remove this matter where there will be no private ends to meet and make the men responsible upon an official bond to the State.
Let any member of the Senate take up the Auditor's report: the Auditor of the State, in his last report, says that the State has been swindled out of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars - enough to buy any three printing offices in the State of Indiana. I would like to know where the State ever got a dollar back except from Mr. Conner who voluntarily refunded it. I think the Auditor might have increased that amount one hundred and fifty thousand dollars more and it would probably be nearer the truth. I think the State in the last ten years has been swindled out of three hundred thousand dollars in the item of printing alone, to say nothing about the amount on public buildings, of which there is no record. Now what is our duty ? We have lost that much money - there can be no question about it. The Auditor of States puts it at one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and I think he is not half high enough in his figures. There is no remedy for the past - this money is gone. This thing occurs in various ways, and one of the ways is by a collusion between printers and stationers in the purchase of material by which twice and three times, and even as much as twelve prices, I think some of them said, has been paid by the State. Then there is the overmeasuring of work. The price fixed by law is about the sum paid to the type setters, and yet these State Printers have made immense fortunes. That law is wrong which discriminates against the printers, yet they have made money under it.
But what I desire now to say is this that the adoption of the pending motion will not facilitate this matter. I know you cannot pass a law regulating the prices for public printing, any more than you can regulate the prices of meat or flour. It is fluctuating every year. Whenever you make a law seeking to regulate these prices you must discriminate against the printer or liable yourself to be swindled. For these reasons a majority of the Committee concluded to adopt a system which would give the State a responsible public printer, who should give a bond to the amount of fifty thousand dollars; then a supervisory Board, and make them responsible; and then compelling the Secretary of State to make a record of every item contracted for and the price paid. We have no law upon that subject now.
Another thing provided for in this bill is the purchase of fuel and stationery. We have two or three laws on this subject - one providing that the Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of State shall furnish the stationery. I am imformed that the Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer have wholly disregarded this law. In the matter of stationery for the General Assembly, the last Legislature cost the State seventeen thousand dollars, and the special session footed up about twelve thousand dollars in addition for the single item of stationery. Where are we drifting? Then there is another law which provides that the State Librarian shall purchase all the stationery for the use of himself and the General Assembly, and his certificate shall be sufficient authority to the Auditor of State to audit the account. There is a man who is given unlimited power to draw money out of the Treasury for stationery, fuel and any other service he may desire. Here are two sets of officers authorized to purchase stationery. Both officers exercise the right, and the State foots the bills. I provide that all this stationery shall be purchased by the supervisory Board.
Another thing provided for is all the contracts for the repairs of public buildings; the contracts for repairing public buildings no one knows anything about. The State has been saved eight or ten thousand dollars recently on repairs of this old State House by the vigilence of some State officer.
This bill provides another thing. That all the printing done at the expense of the State shall be done at the State's public printing office.
I hope this Senate will not refer this bill back to a Committee without first expressing an opinion as to whether this thing shall continue. If we place the printing in the hands of private parties what is the effect of it ? They are hounding the Legislature to allow printing to be done at the expense of the State and documents are printed by the thousands when there is no law authorizing their distribution and they are never distributed. The State Auditor reports that the public printing for the past ten years has cost some four hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars, and adding eighty odd thousand dollars, the cost of printing the Adjutant General's report to this sum, would run that item up to five hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars, instead of four hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars as the Auditor has it, which makes this printing cost the State fifty-three thousand dollars per annum.I have talked to printers familiar with the business and they estimate the cost of an office at from fifteen to thirty thousand dol- page: 458[View Page 458] lars - I believe two went over thirty thousand dollars - leaving a clear margin in any one year of twenty-three thousand dollars to run the office. -And I am told by men who know what such material costs and are familiar with the business who say that material for the State printing proper ought not to cost more than eight to ten thousand dollars at the very outside; yet we are paying forty-five thousand dollars for printing which I am satisfied we could procure by hiring the services of from three to five ordinary printers.
I think the Senate ought to come to a vote on this question. I, for one, desire to know what Senators mean to do - whether they intend to lease this thing out a year longer or make somebody responsible. I have yet to find the first man who says this is not the plan to get out of this. I hope the Senate will send a bill to the Judiciary Committee that will do some good. The Committee concur in the report with the exception of Senator Beardsley, who introduced the other bill, and his adverse position was for the reason that he desired two drafts before the Senate.
Mr. DWIGGINS. Taking what the Senator from Hamilton [Mr. O'Brien] has said as true, we are doing things pretty wild in this State, but he is altogether mistaken. The State Librarian is required to make an itemized statement of his expenditures to every Legislature. The honorable Senator further states that the State Librarian is authorized to improve this old State House and that there is no check upon him, whereas the truth is he can only expend money for the improvement of the State House grounds with the consent of the Auditor, Treasurer and Secretary of State. If he expends money without their concurrence, that is no argument against the law. There are just two things the Librarian has no check in - one is to employ firemen and another is to buy fuel; and his bills are to be paid when presented.
The honorable Senator has labored long and loud to prove that the mode heretofore adopted has worked deleterious to the State. I presume every Senator believes that there should be some change in the matter of public printing. I have not examined the subject but will make one or two suggestions. If we purchase a press and employ a superintendent of public printing about six months in every two years there will be an abundance of printing to do; and then, sir, there will be about eighteen months the State will have comparatively no printing to do.
Mr. O'BRIEN (interposing.) Who is to print the reports of the officers of State when the Legislature is not in session.
Mr. DWIGGINS. I say there will be comparatively no printing - as compared with what there is to do during the session of the Legislature. During the session of the Legislature and immediately thereafter until the laws and journals are published and bound it will require a large force in this office to do the printing; but after that there will be a small amount of printing to do. Then printing material will waste away and become unfit for use -
Mr. SLATER (interposing.) That's a mistake.
Mr. DWIGGINS. I don't know anything about it. The Senator says he has made inquiries of gentlemen in other States where they do the printing by contract, and they say that the contract system is worse than a public printer; but it is a strange thing to me that a State cannot go into the market and let a contract for doing the public printing and get it done at a reasonable cost. It occurs to me that Senators should look at this question in the light: "How would I do it? If it were to be paid for out of my own pocket would I trust it to a hired man or would I let it out by contract?" I make these suggestions without knowing anything about it.
Mr. HALL. I move to refer both bills and reports with the amendments suggested by the Committee on Printing to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to report a bill providing that the State printing shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder.
Mr. HARNEY. I think we ought to decide this question now. As has been remarked there have been outrageous frauds perpetrated under the contract system; and it originated from the fact that the men who let this contract didn't perform their duty. There is no reason why the public printing should not be done under the contract system cheaper than under any other system; the buying of a State printing office would open an avenue for more fraud than the other. The contract system has this advantage : in two years if it don't work well we can abandon it. It strikes me the best thing now is the contract system.
Mr. STEELE. I am unprepared to vote for either of these bills. If there is anything better to be obtained I am anxious we shall do so. As far as furnishing a press for the State and running it is concerned, I am wholly unprepared to say what the cost will be ; and I think a large majority of the Senate are in the same fix. If this subject is sent to a committee with instructions to report a bill of course they will do so, but if they chose to report a bill different allow them to do it; we will then have these bills before the Senate and will be better prepared to adopt one or the other. I would be glad to see it referred page: 459[View Page 459] to a select committee rather than to the Judiciary Committee as I am a member of that Committee and would be glad to get rid of the responsibility for I feel myself incompetent. At any rate I think we had better refer these bills to some Committee, and not tie it down to these two particular bills, but allow it to report such a bill as in its judgement may seem best.
Mr. SLATER. This Committee on Printing has been considering this subject for weeks. They are in earnest in this matter. They desire some reform, they think some money can be saved to the State in this matter of the public printing. They have examined into these propositions and thoroughly canvassed the matter in every manner possible; and if a reform is desired we think the bill reported by the Committee should be passed. If it is the wish and desire of the Senate, as it seems to be, to throw overboard all the work that this Committee has done, I can't see the necessity of it, here has been a great amount of labor expended on this bill, and I don't think any better plan can be devised than the one we have hit on. The disposition to refer this subject back to a Committee seems to me like an effort to strangle this bill. It seems to me there is a disposition here not to give to the people what they desirea reform in this public printing business. I would like to have the Senate act decisively upon these bills.
Mr. O'BRIEN. The Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins,] called me to an account for my statement that the purchase of stationary by the State Librarian was unlimited by law, and I have seen nothing in the Statutes to change my view since. [Mr. O'Brien reads from the Revised Statutes.]
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing) that has been repealed.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I should like to see it, unless the Senator finds a more recent Statute I shall insist that I am correct. I may have overlooked a repealing Statute. If this most important reform in the State government has been overlooked they must have had a large amount of business on their hands, or they must be somewhat negligent. This matter has been considered by the Committee on Printing since the first of the special session, and now the proposition of these gentlemen who are unprepared to vote is that these bills shall be sent to a large Committee which has already a great amount of business before it. I have no objections to a reference to that Committee for a legal opinion, but I think the Senate should say whether they will or will not adopt one or the other system.
Mr. STEELE. In considering the purchase of a press did the Committee take into consideration the purchasing of sufficient room or a building?
Mr. O'BRIEN. I will state to the Senate that the Commitee have estimates upon all these questions, we are informed that a suitable building can be rented at from twelve to fifteen hundred dollars a year. We make an appropration of two thousand dollars or as much as may be necessary. We have estimates for the purchase of an office at from thirteen thousand to twenty thousand dollars - generally about twenty thousand dollars. We place this in the hands of officers of State who are responsible for the purchase at a reasonable price. Then we appropriate fifteen thousand dollars for the annual expenses of the office. The estimates are carefully made, I have taken men disinterested, as far as I know and these are the estimates.
Mr. STEELE. Suppose we adopt the other system and elect a Commissioner of Printing to assist the Govoner, Secretary and Treasurer of State to do this work at the least possible cost to the State.
Mr O'BRIEN. That system has been tried in Ohio but it has proved unsatisfactory. I think this bill is as well guarded as it can be. It appropriates two thousand dollars for contingent expenses. If these bills are thrown into the Lands of a new Committee you had better throw away the entire work of this printing Committee.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence. I do not wish to be considered as reflecting on the Committee by my motion. The Committee have been unable to come to a conclusion among themselves. I find two reports from this Committee and simply because they do not agree, I conclude it would be better to refer this matter to another Committee. I am ready if it desirable, to vote upon these bills now, but I am not ready to vote for the bill of the Senator from Hamilton [Mr. O'Brien,] which provides for an appropriation out of the treasury of fifty-two thousand eight hundred dollars. I think in the end it would cost more than ever, notwithstanding the wrongs the State has suffered at the hands of State Printers.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It is useless to send both bills to a Committee. The Senate should decide which one it is in favor of. I am satisfied that the contract system is the best. It is far preferable. In 1867, the State Board of Agriculture applied to the Legislature for an appropriation for the publication of their reports - asking the Legislature to give them the right to make their own contract. A bill was passed appropriating three thousand dollars for the year 1867 and 1868, but omitted to say that in 1868 they should have the right to contract for the printing; so in 1868 the State Printer done page: 460[View Page 460] it. Here are the books (holding them up in his hands.) In 1867 they got three thousand five-hundred cuts and six hundred and ninety seven pages printed for three thousand dollars, being let to the lowest bidder; and in 1868 they got four hundred and ninety two pages with twenty-five or six hundred cutsone thousand ten cuts and two hundred pages less, cost the same price when done by the State Printer. That is an argument in favor of letting the public Printing to the lowest responsible bidder.
On motion by Mr. O'Brien, the motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee with instructions, was laid on the table by yeas 13, nays 31, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Dittemore, Glessner, Gooding, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Neff, O'Brien, Rhodes, Sarnighausen, Slater, Sleeth and Wadge - 13.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Beggs, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Friedley of Lawrence, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Hubbard, Miller, Oliver, Orr, Ringo, Scott, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Taylor, and Thompson - 31.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. GOODING, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I am not prepared to take final action on either of these bills. I think the Judiciary Committee has more labor than it ought to perform already before it. I think the best thing the Senate could do would be to set these bills for a day certain, make the subject a special order and have a free discussion. I don't wish to be considered as committed to either one of these propositions. I vote "aye."
Mr. NEFF, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said : I am really like the Senator from Vanderburg [Mr. Gooding,] unprepared to vote on the question before us, I really don't know whether the provisions of either bill suits me. I should like, for the purpose of qualifiing myself to vote intelligently, to see both bills printed. I don't know which system is the best calculated to prevent the State from being swindled. I vote "aye."
Mr. SCOTT, when his name was called said : I know very little about the merits of this controversy, but I want to say in explanation of my vote, that I am opposed to referring this bill to any other Committee than the one which has had it in charge. But very few Senators other than members of that Committee know anything about the merits of it, and it is folly to take it from them. I vote "no."
When the roll-call was completed -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the result of the vote as above recorded.
So the motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee was rejected.
[See top of page 153.]
