▁say ▁in ▁their ▁design ▁or ▁production , ▁and ▁thus ▁had ▁no ▁reason ▁either ▁to ▁like ▁or ▁to ▁defend ▁the ▁new ▁issue . ▁Moreover , ▁even ▁before ▁the ▁p ict orial s ▁appeared ▁they ▁had ▁already ▁acquired ▁enemies ▁as ▁a ▁result ▁of ▁the ▁previous ▁year ' s ▁unus ually ▁content ious ▁competition ▁for ▁the ▁contract ▁to ▁produce ▁the ▁ 1 8 6 9 ▁U . S . ▁st amps . ▁The ▁designs ▁and ▁printing ▁propos als ▁offered ▁by ▁the ▁National ▁Bank note ▁Company ▁during ▁June ▁ 1 8 6 8 ▁had ▁been ▁chosen ▁by ▁the ▁Post ▁Office , ▁despite ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁another ▁company — - ▁Butler , ▁Car p enter — - ▁had ▁submitted ▁a ▁less er ▁bid . ▁The ▁dec iding ▁factor ▁may ▁have ▁been ▁that ▁National ▁had ▁the ▁rights ▁to ▁the ▁pat ented ▁appar atus ▁used ▁for ▁in cis ing ▁st amps ▁with ▁gr ill - pattern s , ▁a ▁procedure ▁the ▁Post ▁Office ▁had ▁recently ▁adopted ▁in ▁hopes ▁of ▁making ▁it ▁impossible ▁to ▁clean ▁the ▁can cell ations ▁from ▁st amps ▁and ▁reuse ▁them . ▁Nevertheless , ▁Butler , ▁Car p enter ▁str enu ously ▁protest ed ▁the ▁re jection ▁of ▁their ▁low ▁bid ▁and ▁must ered ▁an ▁array ▁of ▁al lies ▁in ▁a ▁prot ract ed ▁attempt ▁to ▁have ▁the ▁contract ▁re ass igned ▁to ▁them — - ▁even ▁cont riv ing ▁to ▁have ▁an ▁investigation ▁begun ▁by ▁a ▁Cong r essional ▁committee , ▁which ▁delayed ▁the ▁actual ▁signing ▁of ▁the ▁contract ▁with ▁National ▁until ▁December . ▁ ▁In