The State Printer Monopoly
An editorial argument against the political corruption inherent in the state printer's office.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The Dawn wants to go on record as favoring the abolition of the office of state printer unless it is owned and operated by the state. The idea of electing a state printer and allowing him to charge such prices as he sees fit—competing in the furnishing of blanks and printed matter with every printing office in the state, especially the local papers who work unceasingly for the election of the county ticket—is a gross injustice. The state printer's office is one of the best paying offices in the state and one of the biggest monopolies. The state should either own and operate the plant or abolish the office and let the work out to the lowest bidder.
“The state should either own and operate the plant or abolish the office and let the work out to the lowest bidder.”
Local newsrooms have always struggled to balance their civic watchdog role with the reality of surviving in a small market. This 1898 protest against state-sanctioned printing monopolies mirrors modern concerns about how municipal contracts and public notice advertising are awarded, sometimes bypassing the very local outlets that inform the public.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.