Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-09-14
HALL OF RECORDS CASE.
The Board of Supervisors Sustained and
the case Dismissed.

Judge benson Yesterday gave his decision
in the cose of Samuel Blair VS.. the Board of
Supervisors. which was brought to set aside
and have declared void the action of the
Board in relation to building a Hall of Rec
ords. The following is the decision in full.
and which viii be found to fully sustain the
proceedings of the Board in the premises:
This is q special proceeding under the Code
to test the validity of the proceedings of the
Bosrd Of Supervisors in relation to building
q Hall Of Records for Sacramento county,
and is authorized by Section 106S, Code of
Civil Procedure, which reads as follows !:
Section 106S. A wit of review may be
granted by any Court except Police or JUS
tice's Court, when an inferior tribunal, Board
or officer exercising judicial functions has
exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal,
board or officer, and there is no appeal nor,
in the judgment OF the Court, any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy"
At the very threshold of this Investigation
comes the question "Was the Board Of
Supervisors exercising Judicial functions IN
its proceedings relating to a Hall of Rec
ords?" for upon the answer to this query
depends the power of this Court to review
the proceedings OF the Board 10 any event.
The books are full Of illusions to judicial
functions and ministerial functions" but
L am not aware OF any decision or comment
airy in which technical definition OF either
phrase is attempted or in which any definite
and distinctive line is drawn between judi
cial - ana ministerial functions. How
ever, those terms are well understood, and
perhaps it is easier to understand and act
upon than to clearly define them.
[ can discover no element OF : judicial func-
ton " in the matter of determining. that
Hall Of Records is necessity for the pre-,
servation of the public records. Judicial
functions are exercised when an issue Is raised
upon the decision of which parties nave
right to be heard and when an officer or
Board is charged with the performance OF
some particular duty, or empowered to act in
some specific sphere not involving any ques-
ton between parties upon which is given q
right TO be heard, although the exercise OF
sound discretion be requisite, the jurisdiction
is ministerial"
The Board of Supervisors hare jurisdiction
to purchase supplies for the County Hospital,
and much good Judgment and discretion are
essential in properly determining the particu-
lar kinds and qualities of food and other sup
plies to be provided for the support of the in
digept sick of the county, but it would be alb
surd to say that in exercising such discretion
the Board acted judieiaily.
And SO, in almost every act of the Board
OF Supervisors, sound discretion must be ex-
ercsed, and their actions can be reviewed on
! certioydri only when the jurisdiction to act
partakes of the nature Of a trial of some Is
| sue, or OF some matter wherein some person
has the legal right to make an issue and have
| the same tried.
Subdivision of Section 4046 of the Polit.
| ical Code confers upon the Board of Super
visors the power - to cause to be erected and
furnished Court house, Jail, Hospital and
such other public buildings as may be neces-
sary."
The duty of determining when any public
building is necessary devolves entirely upon
the Board, and no other person has any right
to have notice, or to be heard, either favor of
or ag Iinss the proposition, and the duty of
the Board in such regard has no resemblance
to nor element Of judicial functions.
1t clearly follows that this Court cannot in
the proceeding review the proceedings of the
Board of Supervisors complained of, and the
case might well end here, but since other
questions were argued by counsel, and since
this is matter of considerable public con
Germ, l deem it appropriate to dispose OF
some of the other questions presented.
1t was claimed upon the argument that the
Board proceeded irregularly IN not following
the provisions Of ''An Act to regulate the
erection of public buildings and structures"
approved April l, 1872. Statutes of 1912,
p. 925).
But upon critical examination Of that
Act l am convinced that it applies only TO
cases where there is q specific amount OF
money appropriated by some special or gen
eral law for the erection of particular struc-
ture and not to the erection of any building
or structure which might be erected in the
discretion OF any regular officer OF Board, and
/ where 10 appropriation therefore had been
made. An analytical discussion OF this sta
| tute would render this opinion of much
greater length than have tine or inclination
to make it, and 1 content myself by giving
my conclusion only.
The Board of Supervisors is vested, az has
been seen, with full authority to determine
when a public building is necessary. and to
cause It To be constructed under such iimi
tatioAs and restrictions as are prescribed by
law" (Section 4046, Political Code And the |
only limit alton upon their jurisdiction and
power, as far as | can discover, Is that plans
and spec ications must be prepared before
the contract is made, AMI this was done.
But counsel say the contract was not award !
ed TO the lowest bidder, and in this respect
the Board acted beyond its Jurisdiction.
There is no requirement IN the Code or other
law Of this State making it the duty OF the
Board of Supervisors to award any CONTRACT to
the lowest bidder except Section 40i7 Of the
Political Code, as enacted April l, 1873, which
reads:
"The Supervisors must contract fo,:
Firss-All county printing.
Second-All books and stationery.
"Third-Al! supplies for county institu-
tons
And all contracts must be made with The
lowest bidder, and after ten days public no.
tice that such contract will be let. The
/ bidding must be by sealed proposals"
And no reasonable construction of this sec
ton could make it apply to the erection of
/ public building or structure; and such an in
! tent certainly could not have existed in the
/ legislative mind. And besides. it is a matter
/ of grave doubt whether this sec ion even is
nov existing.
/ In the original Code there is no section
numbered 40i7, but in 1874 > . new section
neayly ike the one quoted was enacted, and
| given tbat number, ard ct the same session
another section numbered 40i7, upon an en-
| tigely different subject was enacted. Then
1 in 1873 the amended section above quoted
was enacted as an amended Section 4047.
/ Tnen arain the Legislature Of 1879 50
amended Section 4o17, 50 as to make 1t re-
1 late to the power of the Board TO r quire the
Sheriff TO be present at their sessions aud pre-
serve order. 1t is somewhat difficult to say
| Just what the Legislature intended, but prob
ably the effect Of the last amendment was to
make that the only section bearing that num-
/ Der, aud to repeal the section quoted.
In the absence Of any legislative restriction
; the supervisors Womb hob De pound To award
+ the contract to the lowest bidder notwith-
staining it would be their moral duty SO to
do other things being equal. We may
readily conceive ot circumstances under
which no prudent man acting for his
own interests would award a contract
to the lowest bidder The lowest bid might
/ lie 20 low that it would he apparent chat the
/ contract could not be performed honestly
without great loss TO the contractor, or it
might come from a VIGOROUSLY Incompetent
person, or from one who was known to be
dishonest and inclined to cheat by using unfit
material etc, and in such case any prudent
man would decline 20 accept bid even II 1t
seemed TO be the lowest. Or two bids might
! be nearly equal, and the person advertising
for bids should be well acquainted with one
bidder and know him TO be competent aud
always honest, upright and puuctual in doing
bis work, and fair and reasonable in making
settlements, aud have no knowledge of the
other bidder he would not hesitate to pay
the slightly larger amount for the security
he would feel from the possibility Of unfaith-
full work or disa yreement and litigation.
The lowest bid was 1929 lower than the
one accepted in this instance, and while
the reasons actuating the Board are
not before the Court, and not proper TO be