Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 December 1900 — The Reformer’s Bill Cut In Two. [ARTICLE]

The Reformer’s Bill Cut In Two.

The county commissioners yesterday considered and acted upon the bill of F. E. Babcock, publisher of the Jasper County Democrat for ballots or the reoent election. His total bill was for slsl 37. The commissioners gave Mr. Babcock a hearing, as to the merits of his bill, and also called two other printers, the publishers respectively of the Democratic Sentinel and the Republican, to obtain their views as to the value of the job. Mr. Babcock stated that he had based bis -charges on what wag charged for ballots this year in Newton county,' by th£t celebrated pie-hunter, the ■ publisher of the Kentland Enterprise, a Republi - can paper but evidently for revenue Only, The itemized bills for ballots in this county in 1896 and 1898 were produced, from the auditor’s office, ou demand of Mr. Babcock. It was then 6eert that in 1896 we charged $3.50 per 1000 for county ballots, that year, and $1.50 per 1000 for c junty ballots and the ‘same price for township ballots in 1898, there being none in 1896. Mr, Babcock’s charges, this year as stated by himself were $5 per 1000 for county ballots and $7 per 1000 for township ballots. His charge f n r constitutional amendment ballots was $3 per 1000. He admitted that he had charged this enormous price for these last little slips,Jbecause he “understood” the Kentland piehunters had oharged that rate. But he was willing to reduce lhat particular charge to $2 per 1000. It was shown that, as based on the prioes for ballots heretofore paid in this county, as shown by Mr. Babcock’s own documentary evidenoe, namely the itemized bills for 1896 and 1898, the entire job would be worth $75 or SBO. 1 hat was also the opinion of the publisher of the Republican. The publisher of the Democratic Sentinel said he would do the job at any lime for SSO. It was also stated, and no doubt truly, that if the job had been put out to competition, as most other public printing is now done, the price of which is not fixed by law, that the cost would not have been more than S7O. In any case, however, the county council, a body whose work Mr. Babcock has always specially commended, had made a specific appropriation of $75 for election ballots this year, and as the commissioners have adopted the rule of only what the counoil appropriates they therefore allowed Mr. Babcock only the $75 the council appropriated, which was an entirely proper action upon their part. A FEW CORRECTIONS. In this connection we wish to make two or three corrections in our article in reference to this claim in Monday’s daily and Tues days’ semi-weekly. For one thing we were mistakened in stating that Mr. Baboock furnished 650 township sample ballots. The number was actually 240. The charge however, was as we stated, $6.50. Our charge for township sample ballots in 1898 was $2.50. We were also in error in stating that Mr. Babcock had furnished 300 more township ballots thtffc the election commissioners ordered. We made the mistake by putting Gillam down for 770, when the actual number was 470. We also made an error in stating that his oharge for county ballots was $5.30 per 1,000, as it was even $5 per 1000. Our charges in 1898 and 1896 were $3.60 per SI,OOO. Our statement that the election commissioners did not order sample township ballots was based on

what the election record book shows. Mr. Babcock claims, however, Imd we presume truly, that he had a written order for them. These errors are not in our judgement very important, and they do not effect the general faofs that Mr. Baboock’s charge of was at the rate nearly twice as much as the county has been paying for ballots and sampie ballots, heretofore and that his charge was more than twice what the cost would have been had the work been offered to the lowest responsible bidder; and further, that it was a little more thaij twice the amount the once greatly admired County Couacil appropriated for the purpose."