yebbin= and the Democratic Review
{"character_count": 3018, "word_count": 537, "ccnet_language_score": [0.970300018787384], "ccnet_perplexity": [1314.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The Morning Post (latc New Era) of yester-
day copies from the Phadelphia North American
paragraph in relation to the official Jobbing at
Washington by which the Democratic was so
| obectionablv nourished, and says


Had the North American looked at the Tribune atten-


lively, it would have that its charges against the Re
view amply retued by the editor me heview mas mas
never bad cent the Treasury if we understand the
matter"


Now it gives US no pleasure to allude to this
matter, but the Post compels US TO say that TINS
protested Correction is grossly incorrect. The
Tribune has contained nothing like what is here
stated Mr. O'Sullivap did indeed state that he
had no personal knowledge of the business opera
tions of his former partner Mr.. Langtrce, in
Washington, and that former Committee of Con-
gress had declared Mr.. Clerk Garlanda bargains
with that gentleman perfectly fair and regular.-
Whist does all this amount to Docs it at all con-
trovcrt the facts developed in Mr.. Lima late Re
port? Certainly not.


We were some time since Put in possession OF
other facts strongly corroborating those thus de-
veloped. We are assured that MIR. Langtree was
offered SIS OCO cash in hand for his Stationery con-
tract with. Mr.. Garland in behalf of Congress,
which he very naturally refused, as it was worth
$1,000 aud over Again, we are assured that
Job Of LithograPhy was given him by Mr.. Gar
land, which he sold out of hand to Clerk IN the
Public service (no li,hegrapher for 81 600 in cash.
who of course made 4 farther profit out OF the
Government and the actual photographer. Is this
according to Gunter7


But again Mr.. O'Sullivan, as proprietor OF the
Democratic Review, is now, if we are not misin-
formed the appointed Printer of the Decisions,
&C. of the Supreme Court of the United Slntes, at
price which withdraws large sum of money
annually from the National Treasury to sustain his
partisan periodical. He is no Priater, and OF
course EMPLOYS Printer to do the work, reserving
n liberal profit to himself. Against this, also, we
protest as an invasion of the just rights of actual
printers as a gouge on the Treasury There is no
chance in view, for him to make any money
fairly in this way. If the Government pays OILY a
fair price, the whole Of that price should go to the
man who does the work. 1t is only by an invasion
of the Just rights ofthe craft added to an imposition
on the Treasury that a alawyer-Editor can make a
profit between them.


These remarks made in all kindness to Mr..
| OSullivan whom respect and esteem. We
! blame him and have blamed him nothing in all
this matter. If public officers choose to employ
him to do job nf printing TYPOGRAPHY topur-
vey stationery, and he make profit by il, we
certainly cannot ask OF expect, as the world gees
that he will refuse. But those officers who rcsor,
to this method of sustaining partizan engine out
of the Public Treasury guilty of gross breach
of duty, involving most pernicious example, and
for this we denounce them.