Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this volume
to replace the irreparably deteriorated
original. It was scanned using Xerox software
and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution
and compressed prior to storage using CCITT
Group 4 compression. The digital data were used
to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper
that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The
production of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of Library
Research Materials and the Xerox Corporation.
Digital file copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.READ AND HAND TO YOUR NEIGHBOR,
LUCIUS ROBINSON
AND
THE STATE PfilMHG CONTRACT!
A Specimen of Democratic Economy!
HOW 4 REFORM” WORKS!
A JOB OF EXORBITANT PROPORTIONS!
FACTS AND FIGURES !
The contract for State printing awarded last winter by Lucius Robinson, Comptroller of the State, now Democratic
candidate for Governor, was discovered, upon careful scrutiny, to be such a cunningly-devised scheme of extortion that
the Legislature directed an investigation to be instituted, and facts were disclosed showing, beyond question, that a job
had been sanctioned by Comptroller Robinson which would cost the State hundreds of thousands of dollars for work
which, under Republican management, did not exceed $70,000. Hon. JOHN H. SRLKREG, Senator from the 24th dis-
trict, exposed the fraud in the following telling speech:	rr.
In Senate, April 12, 1876.
The resolution of the Assembly touch-
ing the character of the recently entered
into Printing Contract coming up, Mr,
SELKREGr spoke as follows:
The resolution before us, Mr. President, in
my judgment is of sufficient importance to
demand at our hands more consideration and
a more extended examination than is general-
ly accorded to messages which reach us from
the other and co-ordinate branch of the legis-
lature, as it touches the contract for Legisla-
tive Printing just entered into by the State
officers, which defines the liabilities of the
treasury under it, and the compensation which
the contractor is to receive for the service
performed.
It is no new statement to Senators, and the
knowledge they possess is shared by the pub-
lic, as it is matter of record, that the Secretary
of State and Comptroller, who are by law
charged with a specific duty in relation there-
to, issued an advertisement inviting proposals
for the execution of the Legislative Printing
for the years 1876 and 1877. The advertise-
ment was published m December last, with
the award to be made on the 22d of that
month. The proposals, when received from
the several contractors making them, were
declared each and all, to fall within that pro-
vision which allowed the State officers to de-
cline them, and advertise anew for others. On
the 3d of January, 1876, a second advertise-
ment appeared, again requesting contractors
to compete for the work, and designating the
29th of that month as the date when the bids
would be examined, and the successful con-
tractor named. Upon that date, or soon there-
after, to wit, on the 8th of February following,
the contract was awarded to J. B. Parmenter
<fc Co., was then duly signed and became
operative and binding, so far as such contract
can be.
By the terms of the law under which these
proposals were issued, and by authority of
which the contract was executed, it was de-
clared the duty of the State officers referred
to, to award the printing to the lowest bidder.
This requirement is an absolute command,
and it cannot be made a question of judgment,
neither can it be waived or avoided.
Before proceeding to analyze this contract
known as the Parmenter contract, it is proper
that reference should be made to the propos-
als. They declare, not in spirit merely, but
in express terms, that “ but one proposal or
bid, will be received, directly or indirectly,
from any one person, firm or party in interest,
for the same work.”
By an examination of the third page of
senate document No. 40, it will be seen that
Parmenter & Co. did not restrict their offer to
a single bid, as required, but embraced in one
proposal two separate bids, declaring, how-
ever, that if the last one, which proposed to
do all the work for a gross sum, was irregular,
it should be deemed null and void, and as not
forming part thereof. That it was irregular,
is demonstrated by the fact that no such bid
3)2
or proposal was asked for, invited or contem-
plated by the State officers; and no reference
appears in their published advertisement
thereto. On the contrary, throughout the
public invitation to do the work, in both cases,
there are distinct directions in regard to the
several classes of service, and to these the
bidders were required to conform by specific
prices, to be designated for each of them.
After having received such irregular pro-
posals, the State officers not only made an
award within the line of such irregularity,
but they signed a contract based upon two
radically distinct bids; upon one offering to
do the work for $47,500, and also upon one
agreeing to perform the service in detail, as
set forth in the itemised statement.
Perhaps their decision and the contract com-
pleted thereunder would not necessarily be
subject to criticism were the contractors,
Messrs. Parmenter & Co., within the class
of “ lowest bidders,” to whom the law de-
clares the work shall be awarded; but such
is not the fact. This contract, as can be
shown by the tables, which a life-long prac-
tical acquaintance with the printing business
has enabled me to prepare, can be demon-
strated to be highly inimical to the interests
of the people, and under which frauds may
be committed upon the treasury of the State,
most astounding in their character.
I weigh well the import of the words I
utter. You will search in vain for a solitary
canal contract, with the claimed wickedness
of which the whole land has rung, and every
one of which are denounced as marvels of
chicanery and mediums of fraud, that in any
respect equals this printing contract. The
“unbalanced’’ bids by contractors, which have
brought into disrepute many of our public
works, will hereafter be spoken of as models
of honest engagements, when compared with
the Bigelow-Parmenter contract of 1876. If
this is strong language, I beg to inquire
whether its use is not entirely justified when
the surroundings of this transaction are taken
into account. Did any senator, nay, did any
individual ever learn of an “unbalanced”
canal bid which allowed a contractor, for the
use of a particular material, costing less than
$2,250, to charge for the same an advance of
$79,650. Is this denied? I aver it is so writ-
ten in the bond, and that bond bears the sig-
nature of Hon. John Bigelow, Secretary of
State, of Hon. Lucius Robinson, Comptroller,
and their political friends in “ reform,” Jerome
B. Parmenter & Co., while in the background,
in all its graceful ease and honesty, is the figure
of Mr. Thomas B. Carroll, supported by the
Albany Argus, at which establishment the
entire work is being performed, and which
only ceases its diatribes on “ canal thieves ”
and “ frauds ” generally, just long enough to
present, through its principal, Parmenter,
enormous drafts upon the treasury, with the
proceeds of which the pockets of its proprietors
are lined with public plunder. The Albany
“Printing Ring” and printing frauds have
been and are familiar topics. But familiar
as they are there never has been a contract
made by State officers so bald and so suscept
ible within its provisions of gross and mon-
strous abuses.
Much has also been charged in reference to
the contract in force in 1874 and 1875. I am
not here to defend it, but documentary proof
shows that the cost of Legislative printing
under it was, for the year 1874, $78,188.05.
Any expert accountant will demonstrate that
under the contract of 1876 the same quantities
upon the same material and in all respects a
duplicate will cost the enormous sum of
$818,003.05. I understand this statement to
be the construction of the contract held by
the State officers, and this is therefore the best
view possible; but I still further understand
from the lips of the contractor himself, that
he insists upon another and more disadvan-
tageous view of it, so far as the public treasury
is concerned. He claims that the “extras”
referred to in his contract simply mean the
difference in numbers between the require-
ments of the law of 1847 and the law of 1859.
If this construction of the remarkable paper
referred to is sustained, you may add as the
lowest figure a further douceur of $10,221.20
— or a grand total thus far of $328,224.25.
But is this all ? By no means. Messrs. Par-
menter & Co. are to receive a gross sum —
$47,500 — for printing, binding and complet-
ing the journals, bills and documents for the
Legislative session of each year. The cost of
these complete in 1874 was exactly $26,698 —
that being the sum paid for the regular num-
bers of each required by the statute of 1859.
Under the understanding of the contract
claimed to be held by the State officers the
contractor for 1876 and 1877 is bound to
furnish, free of cost, additional copies for the
“use of the Legislature,” the expense of
which, under the contract of 1874, was $7,-
933.80; and this sum is allowed in the footings
I have heretofore recited. If, however, the
claim of Parmenter & Co. is held good, then
this $7,933.80 must be added to the larger sum
of $328,224.25, making a grand total of $336,-
158.05.
The average tax payer of the State might
insist that one-third of a million of dollars was
altogether in excess of the service, being
$257,970.00 more than was paid in 1874; but
if this idea is advanced 1 beg .to assure him
that there is still another margin from which
this favored friend of high State officials can
extract a reasonable degree of solid comfort,
and a like reasonable quantity of greenbacks
to swell his compensation. The constitution
under which this body assembled became ope-
rative on the 1st of Januarv, 1875. *
It has restricted legislation in a marked de-
gree. The records of this Senate show a
decrease in the number of bills introduced, of
near 50 per cent, while there is a decrease of
pages of the Journals of the two Houses, of near
25 per cent. Under the old Constitution, in
1874, there was a flood of special charters, and
acts which allowed bills of great length and
minuteness. These, in a large measure, have
disappeared from our files, and every page
the Journal is shortened is to the benefit of the3
contractor—every bill cut off by constitution-
al inhibition, tends to fill the already, or soon
to be, plethoric pocket-books and bank ac-
counts of Messrs. Parmenter & Co., and that
strictly reform journal of the age, the Albany
Argus. Truly, say the State officers in their
luminous communication to the Senate on this
subject, “it will be the contractor’s interest
rather to discourage than to stimulate this
branch of public expenditure.” If “stimu-
lated ” down to the quantities of 1874, he will
receive $47,500 for the precise work the State
then obtained for $26,693.
But there is another part of this contract
which is so transparent that it cannot be class-
ed as a fraud, but must necessarily fall within
the line of pure, unadulterated blundering, or
else it is a deliberate evasion.
By reference to page 3 of Senate docu-
ment No. 40, heretofore referred to, it will be
seen that Parmenter & Co. agree to bind extra
documents at 5 per cent less per page than
was paid under the last contract for the same
work. As the State did not in 1874, and never
held a contract for binding documents by the
page, one of two conclusions must certainly
be reached: either it is a clever and sharp
trick to void that part of the contract, or else
there are two classes of people—State officers
and contractors—who have signed obligations
impossible of fulfillment, and inoperative be-
cause of uncertainty. There is one fact which
might be stated here,thro wing some light upon
this last portion of this last and most remark-
able document. The binding contract of 1874
was taken at so low a figure that there existed
no reasonable profit in its execution. Did
this idea find lodgment in the mind of Par-
menter & Co. while perfecting their bids for
binding, which are absolutely void and worth-
less?
Thus far we have considered the contract
of Parmenter & Co. as compared with the con-
tract of 1874, and without reference to com-
peting bids in proper form -before the State
officers, when the award of January last was
made, an award, which, when fully compre-
hended will be characterized by the honest,
intelligent people of the State as utterly inde-
fensible. It will become famous as the great
fraudulent contract of “reform” State officers,
made under the eye and by the direct inter-
ference and sanction of the “ reform ” gover-
nor; and it will pass into histoiy as without
parallel in capacity for public plunder, even*
at the hour when it was supposed the extreme
limits of ring robbery had been reached, and
their effects endured.
For the Legislative Printing under the pro-
posals of January 3d, there were nine compet-
itors. Of this number eight offered to perform
the service of printing the bills at a lower
price than Parmenter & Co., and two of these
eight fixed the price at 56c. per page, while
Parmenter is to receive $2.25 for all extras
ordered. For Journals of the Senate and As-
sembly, Parmenter receives $1.44 per page,
while seven of the bidders offered to print
them at prices ranging between 50c. and
$1.20 per page, or an average of $1.20. For
documents, Parmenter receives vl.44 per page,
while six bidders offered to do the work at
na average price of 92 1-2 cents.
For rule work, Parmenter & Co. receive
$2.44 per page, while seven bidders proposed
for the service at from 50c. to $1.50, or an
average of $1.10 —just $1.34 less than this
favored friend of trusted State officers.
For rule and figure work, Parmenter & Co.
get $2.44 per page, or, as in the case of rule
work, $1.34 per page more than other respon-
sible bidders.
Margins like these, it would seem, ought to
be ample to satisfy any individual having an
eye upon the public treasury, but I shall pro-
ceed to show that this contract — a document
of such remarkable virtues as to justify its
concoctors in telegraphing them far and
wide — this contract, which has received the
sanction, the official sanction, of Secretary of
State Bigelow and Comptroller Robinson —
this model contract of the age, made, signed,
sealed and delivered by the model men of the
century — will, by its terms, take from the
people and place in the pockets of loud-
mouthed “reformers,” immense sums of
money without adequate compensation, with-
out the sanction of law, and indeed, in viola-
tion of its plain provisions.
We now reach, in our examination of these
comparative figures, the “Big Bonanza” of
this Printing contract. It will be found in
the bid for the use of “ fine paper ” in public
documents. Under direction of the Legisla-
ture in 1874, there were 62,500 copies of vari-
ous reports and messages printed, consisting
of twenty-nine publications not for the use of
the Legislature, such as the Governor’s mes-
sage, Comptroller’s reports, Railroad reports,
Insurance reports, and the general range of
public communications presented to the Sen-
ate and Assembly. Every one of these was
printed on fine paper, at an increased cost
over coarse or common paper of $18,819.19.
Of the eight competitors which Parmenter,
aided by willing State officers, and backed by
the Governor, met and vanquished, one of-
fered to charge but 5 cents per page per 100
copies for fine paper; another fixed his rate
at 6 cents for the same; then two at 7 cents;
two others at 8 cents; one at 10 cents, and one
at 14 cents — all for 100 copies. Parmenter
& Co., under their contract, are empowered
to charge $1.44 per page for fine paper, for
each and every page, for each and every 100
copies of each and every document they may
print, of railroad reports for the use of rail-
roads ; of insurance reports for the use of the
departments; of the report of the Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction for distribution
to school districts, etc., etc. This bid, and the
award upon it, is 2,900 per cent higher than
the lowest Udder, and 1,300 per cent higher
than the contract of 1874.
It is matter of public knowledge that Par-
menter appeared before the Printing Com-
mittee of the Senate and Assembly, in answer
to a request to explain his contract. It is also
known that his explanation was not at all
clear and satisfactory in its character to the4
body which sought this information and
they said so, in a public document. This
committee, of which Hon. Eotus Ingalls was
chairman, made an examination and clearly
discerned its fraudulent character. Upon this
tne contractor addressed a letter to the Speaker
of the Assembly, which probably has been read
by every person around me, and in which,
referring to public agitation upon this matter,
he says:
“ This has tended naturally to make me
“ wary of my legal rights, so that, while I
“ made the bid and executed the contract in
“ entire good faith, and mean in good faith
“ to fulfill every obligation required either by
“ law or honor, and do not mean to be tech-
" nical or illiberal, reasonable prudence sug-
“ gests that I should know how I am to be
* treated in this matter before I make any
“ concessions of my secured rights.”
His “ secured rights.” Who secured to this
individual the right to hold a contract of this
kind and character? Who gave the State offi-
cers the right to execute it? The law did
not; that declares to the contrary. Where is
our “ reform ” Governor, with his bloodhound
scent for fraud and swindling contracts? No
voice from the State House: no message from
the executive chamber; no protest from any-
where except a public demand for justice,
which thunders at the doors of the Legisla-
ture. and which will be heard long after the
people have forgotten that the “ great Ameri-
can Agricultural Fair addresser ” was ever a
high official in the State of New York.
Right here we encounter another peculiar
feature of this contract. By referring to Sen-
ate document No. 40 again, we find on the
45th page that Parmenter & Co. agree that no
charge shall in any case be made for compo-
sition or type-setting for extra copies; and
yet the contractor informs us, in a subsequent
communication, that this portion of the con-
tract will only be adhered to, and observed,
when the order for extra copies is made and
delivered before the type has been distributed.
If this position is maintained, there is a new
ground assumed, from and upon which new
and unexpected charges may be made, and
new aud unexpected drafts upon the treasury
presented. But this is not the particular fea-
ture to which I just now desire to call atten-
tion. The items of lithographing and map-
ping are not by any means inconsiderable
ones. They attained the respectable sum of
$16,370 in 1874, and there exists no reasonable
expectation that less will be required in 1876
and 1877. Assuming that the same is required,
and that Parmenter & Co., in the regular pros-
ecution of their contract, perfect this litho-
graphing and mapping for the regular docu-
ments covered by the gross sum of $47,500,
there is nothing in their contract which pre-
vents them, the moment an order for a single
extra is made, to charge over against the State
every cent of the cost incurred originally in
the preparation of lithographs and maps, and
placing that charge a second time upon the
extras thus ordered. The very silence of the
contract upon this subject may fairly be con-
strued into an intention to take advantage of
this omission, and to obtain thereby many
thousand dollars more upon the “ unbalanced
bids ” of this heretofore unheard of “ unbal-
anced contract.”
But turning to Parmenter again, I desire to
remind the Senate of the facts developed by
the report of the Printing Committee, made
to the Assembly a few days since, of which
the resolution now before us is a natural and
legitimate outcrop and sequence.
The committee, referring to fine paper, say:
“ When the attention of the contractor was
called to this clause, and shown to what extra-
ordinary results it reached in the performance
of a job, he expressed himself as doubting the
existence of such a condition. On reading,
he said it was clearly a mistake; that he was
not aware of it before and should never have
taken advantage of it.”
Has it come to this, that a contract is exe-
cuted and the contractor confesses his entire
ignorance of its contents? Is the conclusion
reasonable that he did not know of a provision
in a contract giving him immense sums of
money, or that the State officers appreciate
the gravity of the situation? More probable
than all this, is the assumption which has im-
pressed itsellf upon the minds of every one
who has examined the subject, that there was
perfect knowledge upon the part of all, and
that the claimed misunderstanding is the only
escape of all parties to it, the Secretary of
State, Comptroller and Parmenter himself,
from a terrible dilemma.
On the 14th of February last, a resolution
passed this body requesting the Secretary of
State to furnish a comparison of the various
bids for the printing under the proposals of
January 3,1876, and also requesting a state-
ment what the same quantities and style of
work would cost under tne Parmenter bid,
awarded by this same officer. This senate
waited patiently for over three and one-half
long weeks before any answer was returned
to this respectful request, presented in a per-
fectly respectful manner. When the answer
was received and read, we found no compari-
son made and no information obtained after
this weary waiting. The reason for this delay
and equivocation lies deeper, and is more
pressing upon the State officers, than they are
willing to admit, or the public, in whose
breast suspicion is aroused, supposed or sus-
pected. Under the resolution of the senate,
and by direction of the State officers, a table
or series of tables were made, and these tables
full and accurate to the minutest detail, were
I have the best of evidence furnished me
when completed, placed before the Secretary
of State, if not before the Comptroller.
Those tables showed a state of facts
even more reprehensible than I have in
these remarks advanced or adverted to,
and established beyond doubt that under the
contract of our Reform State officers, made in
January last, the printing in 1876 and 1877,
executed in the same style, quality of paper
and quantities, will cost over three-quarters of
a million of dollars, if paid for as claimed by5
the contractor, or if paid for under the con-
struction held by the Secretary of State and
Comptroller, will aggregate four hundred,
thousand dollars more than the entire legislative
printing for the years 1874 and 1875. Is the
existence of these tables denied, they can be
produced, and I pledge myself to so produce
them when their existence is questioned.
They were, as I have said, presented to the
State officers, but after such presentation were
found to furnish evidence so alarming that
they were not used as originally intended, but
in their place we have an official declaration
that it is impossible to construct them. In-
stead of it being impossible to construct them
they were constructed, so far as a comparison
with the year 1874 was concerned, but being
constructed and examined they were sup-
pressed, and an attempt, by implication, made
to deny that they were ever created.
Bad as all this is, there is more in this mat-
ter than is yet definitely stated. Not only
have State officers made" a contract open to
the severest criticism of which the language
is capable, but the award thereof was made
by conference and consultation between the
State officers and the individual who is
security for the contractor, and to that con-
ference, and consultation, and conspiracy, the
highest officer of the State, the executive, con-
tributed by solicitation, if not by direct advice
and cooperation. Thus much, if man is to be
believed, is known and known to be so essen-
tially true, in fact, as to be above and
beyond successful denial. Reports to
this eflect have been given to the
public, in some of the most careful and relia-
ble newspapers of the larger cities; and there
is no violence in the assumption that these ex-
tended publications have a more substantial
basis of truth than mere rumor, and are cur-
rent because they rest upon a foundation of
fact, which cannot be disturbed by denials,
which are mere denials, without evidence and
authority. This rumor is perhaps at fault in
some details, but there is a wide-spread con-
viction that our Chief Magistrate, while pen-
ning messages on canal frauds, has actually
been a party (direct by consultation, or indi-
rect by appeals to State officers, that the award
should be made to Parmenter and the Argus)
to this a greater fraud; and, holding this knowl-
edge, he is as dumb as an oyster in reference
to it. The Secretary of State has employed a
large portion of the past season in investiga-
ting canal contracts, and has so familarized
himself with vertical and slope walls, with
mitre sills and mud sills, with tow-path and
berme bank, with digging out and building
in, with docking and piling and filling, that he
knows to a fraction the essential wickedness
of every one of them, and he is admirably fit-
ted for a tilt against the “ Printing Ring ” con-
tract, for the existence of which he and the
Honorable Comptroller are jointly and seve-
rally responsible, and which therefore is
sought to be shielded by his official character.
The first time the State Printing was let at
a gross sum was for the years 1863 and 1864,
at the time Mr. Lucius Robinson, the present
Comptroller, held the position now occupied
by him. In 1861 and 1862 the work was done
under an itemized contract, by Charles Van
Benthuysen & Co., at a cost for the first year
named of $79,000, and for the next year Ol
$51,500. For 1863 and 1864 the work was
awarded to Comstock & Cassidy of the
Argus, on an itemized bid, but "the gross
sum paid was not to exceed $100,000 to cover
the two years—$50,000 each year. When
the bills were presented, however, it was
found they were swollen up to $196,771.82, or
an increase of $96,771.82 above the declared
and contracted price. This was a clear loss to
the State, as compared with 1861 and 1862 of
$89,500. Undeterred by the experience of
1863 and 1864, Mr. Robertson again awarded
the contract for the years 1865 and 1866 for
the gross sum of $100,000, or $50,000 for each
year. This time Mr. Cornelius Wendell had
the plum dropped into his pocket, and gather-
ing wisdom from the experience of his prede-
cessors, he ran the State printing on a contract
basis of $100,000 up to $278,252.07.
The answer of the State officers to the reso-
lution of February 14th, is dated March 10th; it
occupies but about one printed page. It de-
clares that it is impracticable to institute a com-
plete comparative statement in detail of the cost
of certain work done under a previous contract,
and that to be done under the Parmenter con-
tract, and yet there was sent out over the State
immediately on the signing of the contract by
the State officers the following:
“ The contract for Legislative printing was
awarded to-day, by Secretary of State Bigelow
and Comptroller Robinson to J. B. Parmenter
of the Troy Presst at the rate of $47,500 a
year. This is said to be the most favorable
contract to the State ever awarded since the
printing has been done by contract.”
The falsity of the conclusions of this dis-
patch I propose to show, as I think I can
show, from “ facts and figures,” to which I beg
the attention of the Senate, while I examine
them for a brief season.
Hon. John Bigelow and Hon. Lucius Rob-
inson when they signed the answer to the
resolution of the Senate and made the state-
ment that Parmenter & Co. were to receive
only $47,000, they meant $47,500, must also
have known that the contract their signatures
made valid, under the law, demanded from the
treasury a far greater sum than was paid to
the contractor of 1874, and that demand could
only be evaded by the Legislature refusing to
order a single extra report of any kind or
character for insurance companies, for rail-
roads, for the Superintendent of Public In-
struction, and for any of the departments of
our State government, or the institutions re-
quired bylaw to report to the Legislature.
They knew, or ought to have known, that even
under their own construction of the Parmen-
ter contract, the ordinary and usual printing of
the Legislature would exceed one hundred
thousand dollars, and if performed in the same
manner as in 1874, it would, by the terms of
the contract they signed, reach full a third of a
• million of dollars for 1876.6
I said, some time since, that this contract
was utterly indefensible. I feel justified, by a
thorough examination of its provisions, in
making the term I then used far stronger in its
character, and I declare it clearly and essen-
tially fraudulent in its purposes, and entered
into by the contractors to fleece the State, and
rob the public treasury, and that the State offi-
cers either were knowingly parties to the at-
tempt, or else have the lamentable excuse of
ignorance to shield them from the charge of
deliberate crime.
The Albany Argus of yesterday informs
us that near seven thousand dollars have
been paid to Parmenter & Co. for two
month’s service. It will be recollected that
this payment is for printing the journals and
bills merely, and their cost for the entire
session of 1874 was but $10,028. I
do not recollect that a single docu-
ment of any consequence has been
sent them during the period referred to.
And it will still further be recollected
that when this session closes, and the ne-
cessity for printing the journals and bills
ceases, then Parmenter & Co. are to receive
near $1,000 per week from that date until
the session opens again in January next,
for doing absolutely nothing.
It has been my desire to make so plain that
none could misunderstand them, the provisions
of this Parmenter-Bigelow contract. In fol-
lowing out this design, I have prepared a table
which I believe to be, entirely correct, and
which shows at a glance the comparative
prices which will be paid under this last con-
tract, as compared with the contract of 1874.
The reason I select that year under the old
contract, is because all the accounts for that
period are closed, which the State officers in-
sist is not true of 1875. This table gives, 1st,
the cost of printing the Journals, documents
and bills for 1874; 2d, the cost for 1876 for
the same; 3d, the cost of documents for the
use of the Legislature, on coarse paper; 4th,
the same on fine paper; 5th, a general state-
ment of all documents, with numbers of each
and pages of each, with full comparative
prices of the two contracts for coarse and fine
paper, and the immense excess in the prices
of 1876.
COARSE PAPER.	PINE PAPER.
	Coarse paper. Contract of 1874.		Coarse paper. Parmenter.	Fine paper. Contract of 1874.	Fine paper. Parmenter.
Regular Journals, Documents and Bills, 800 copies each		1 1	| $26,693 00	$47,500 00		| $26,693 00	$47,500 08
EXTRAS FOR USE OF LEGISLATURE:
Governor’s Message,
Comptroller’s Report
Auditor’s Financial
Report............
Canal Commission-
ers’ Report........
Bank Department....
Insurance Report...
Department of Pub-
lic Instruction.....
Railroad Report....
Lunatic Asylum.....
State Assessors’ Re-
port ...............
Cora, of Fisheries....
Deaf and Dumb......
Stand’g Committees,
Assembly..........
Stand’g Committees,
Senate............
Adirondack Survey...
Copies.	Pages.		
10,000	40	at 7* c.	$300 00
4,000	144		432 00
1,500	172		193 50
2,000	256		384 00
700	88		46 20
3,000	859		1,932 60
500	400		150 00
3,000	1,050		2,362 50
1,000	60		45 00
2,000	81		120 80
3,000	41		92 10
1,000	92		69 00
2,000	6		9 00
500	4		1 50
3,000	306		688 50
37,200			$33,519 70
at lli cts.
1!
Bi
i§
oz
1
s
460
648
290
676
69
2,899
225
3,643
67
182
138
00
00
25
00
30
20
00
60
5C
00
30
60
40
1,032 90
$36,914 20	.
h
a
1
Binding 9,500 in cloth....
Binding 27,700 in paper.
at 25 c.
at 1 c.
Parmenter higher for coarse paper.
2,736 00
277 00
$36,171 70
4,217 60
$317954 20
15,545
$47,500 00
$47,500 00
at 25 cts....
at let........
Fine paper.
2,735 00
277 00
$39,566 20
4,217 50
$34,248 70
12,251 30
$47,500 00
$47,500 007
EXTRAS ORDERED BY THE LEGISLATURE FOR STATE OF- FICERS, &C.	Copies.	Pages.	Last con- tract. Coarse paper.		Par- menter. Coarse paper.		Excess.		Last contract. Fine paper.		Par- menter. Fine paper.		Excess.	
Supt. of Bank Dept......	800	88	$52	80	$70	40	$18	60	$80	96	$1,013	56	$930	60
Onondaga Salt Springs... State Engineer and Sur-	500	40	15	00	20	00	5	00	22	50	288	00	265	00
veyor on Canals		1,000	103	77	20	103	00	35	80	115	60	1,483	20	1,368	40
Insurance Dept., Life....	2,000	294	441	00	588	00	i QAK	20	657	00	8,467	20	1 AKA	AA
Fire ...	1,500	635	714	30	952	50	f oOO		1,071	60	13,716	00	f	OU
Insurance Report for Co’s	1,500	929	1,045	05	1,393	50	348	45	1,567	65	20,066	40	18,498	75
Regents’ Report.. .. —	1,500	822	924	25	1,233	00	308	75	1,387	05	17,755	20	16,368	15
Dept, of Public Instruc’n Railroad Report		15,000	400	4,500	00	6,000	00	1,500	00	6,750	00	86,400	00	79,650	00
	2,400	1,050	1,890	00	2,520	00	630	00	2,834	88	36,288	00	33,453	12
State Treasurer’s Report.	800	60	36	00	48	00	12	00	54	00	691	00	637	00
Quarantine Report		500	21	7	87	10	50	2	63	11	80	151	20	139	40
State Lunatic Asylum ... State Assessors’ Report..	2,000	60	90	00	120	00	30	00	138	00	1,728	00	1,590	00
	5,000	81	303	50	405	00	101	50	455	50	5,832	00	5,376	50
Canal Appraisers’ Report State Library	 Com. Fisheries		500	37	13	85	18	50	4	65	20	75	266	40	245	65
	1,000	185	138	70	185	00	46	30	208	10	2,664	00	2,455	90
	2,000	41	61	40	82	00	20	60	92	20	1,180	80	1,088	60
Deaf Mutes	 		1,500	38	42	75	57	00	14	25	64	20	820	80	756	60
Inst. Deaf and Dumb		3,500	92	241	50	322	00	80	50	362	25	4,636	80	4,274	55
Governor’s Message		2,000	40	60	00	80	00	20	00	90	00	1,152	00	1,062	20
Comptroller’s Report.... Auditor’s Report	 Canal Com. Report		1,000	144	108	00	144	00	36	00	172	00	2,073	50	1,901	60
	1,500	172	193	50	258	00	64	50	290	25	3,715	20	3,424	95
	2,500	256	477	56	640	00	162	44	720	00	9,276	00	8,556	00
Idiot Asylum		500	16	6	00	8	00	2	00	9	00	115	20	106	20
Inebriate Asylum		1,000	29	21	70	29	00	7	30	32	60	417	60	385	00
Com. to Revise Statutes..	2,000	30	45	00	60	00	15	00	67	50	864	00	796	50
Adj’t-General’s Report..	1,000	338	253	50	338	00	84	50	380	45	4,867	20	4,456	75
Western House of Refuge	2,000	53	79	40	106	00	26	60	118	60	1,526	40	1,407	80
State Board of Charities..	1,500	128	144	00	192	00	48	00	222	00	2,764	80	2,542	80
Adirondack Report		1,000	306	229	50	306	00	76	50	345	25	4,406	40	4,061	15
Willard Asylum		2,500	32	60	00	80	00	20	00	90	00	1,153	00	1,063	00
Prison Association 		2,000	173	259	40	356	00	96	60	389	20	4,982	40	4,593	20
Binding, 11,850, cloth—nc 50,650, paper —n< T.it.hr»<rranhincr in 1R74.		62,500 > bid, sa: ) bid, sa	f				$48,704 43 2,962 50 506 50 16,332 96		$64,235 40 2,962 50 506 50 16,332 96		$4,203 67		$58,386 09 2,962 50 506 50 16,332 96		$298,202 36 2,962 50 506 50 16,332 96		$221,909 97	
		y													
														
Grand total															
			$68,506 39		$82,137 36 68,506 39				$78,188 05		$318,003 32 78,188 05			
Tiflst. nnntrapt.	 _ _ 	 															
Clear loss to the State Including $4,217.50 journals and bills ..	*	.													
					$13,630 97 4,217 50						$239,815 27			
	for reduced													
$17)848 47
Note. — There is no contract for binding. Parmenter was awarded binding at 5 per cent per page
less than last contract. The last contract was by volume, therefore the present contract is void.
The $4,217 referred to in above footings is the reduced volume of journals and bills to be printed,
as compared with the year 1874.
We are confronted by a state of facts, which
may be classed and numbered as follows:
1.	The existence of a contract made in de-
fiance of proposals issued by the State officers.
2.	That contract is in its provisions highly
detrimental to the interests of the State.
8. It was made by State officers who either
had knowledge of its infamous provisions, or,
wanting in such knowledge, have ignorantly
placed in the hands of designing men, a fear-
ful power to plunder the public treasury.
4.	The surety of the contractor is the same
person who acted as the expert advising the
award of the contract on the part of the State
officers.
5.	The contract referred to is capable of,
and is now receiving two different and distinct
constructions, by the parties making it.
6.	It was made by collusion, and is therefore
void and inoperative in law.
7.	Instead of being a contract for the execu-
tion of the work by the lowest bidder, it is a
contract with the highest bidder.
8.	The Governor expressed his desire — a
law to his men of the State House — that Par-
menter should have the contract, and his
wishes were acceded to even to the violation
of statute law and good faith to bona-fide
public bidders.
This established, the practical question is
wThat course is advisable to protect the inter-
ests of the taxpayers and public treasury ?
Thought and reflection upon this subject in-
duces the belief in my mind, that it is the duty
of the legislature to demand the immediate
abrogation of the Bigelow-Parmenter contract
by the parties holding it, and the re-issue of
proposals by the State officers under which
an equitable contract may be obtained in ac-
cordance with the provisions of law. Failing
in this, it may be matter for serious consider-
I ation whether the Senate or Assembly, by joint8
resolution, should not instruct their respective
officers to withhold from Parmenter & Co. all
Legislative Printing, on the ground, a legiti-
mate and defensible ground, that the contract
is so tainted with fraud, as to fall entirely
within the line of conspiracy on the part of
the contracting parties representing the inter-
ests of the people, as the State officers do on
the oneside, and the contractor and his back-
ers, Carroll and the Argus, on the other.
In any view which may be taken of this
contract, it is utterly indefensible. It is not
framed either in justice, equity or sound,
public policy. Its^ provisions are so flagrant
that they will seriously injure and damage,
nay, may entirely destroy the reputation of the
men wb<> are responsible for it. Beyond this,
the nature of this contract is such, that when
placed beneath the eye and within the range
of public attention, another fact will be forced
upon the notice of the people, if indeed cir-
cumstances do not burn it into the pa^es of
their memory, that “ eternal vigilance is the
price of liberty, ” and that it is safe to exercise
a jealous and watchful scrutiny of public men,
who, seated in official position, draw their
garb of “ reform ” around them and suppose
they have blinded the whole people to their
own misdeeds, when they have but demon-
strated that years of profession of public virtue
and public purity will not stand for an instant
confronted by the single fact that they have
lent themselves, and attempted to fasten on
the State, one such infamous contract as that
we have been considering.
*