The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-12-04
PRINTING CONTRACT.
Hearing of Petition to Enjoin
the Supervisors.
Complaint Ct Intervention Filed - Is the
Awarding a legislative or Minis
terial Actf

Is. 1erkluS TO en1ola the Board OF Super
visorS from awarding the city printing for
the next two years to the publishers of the
Report was commenced before Judge Hunt
yesterday.
When the Judge had asked the title of
:; the case Robert Ash applied for right to flle
the following petition for Intervention on
behalf of the journal of Commerce:
Frederick b. Perkins (plainlir1ys Henry Blng-
ham ell al. ldefendants) and The journal of Com
neIce Publishing Company Onlervenor-
COMPLAINT OF INTERVENTION.
The journal of Commerce Publishing Com
pany. a corporation by leave of court first had
and obtained. hies This their complaint of inter-
yenrlon, and said inerYenor complains and
alleges:
That said intervenor is a corporation, duly in
corporated under The laws OF the Stale OF Cali
fOrmia and Is the proprietor, owner and pub
Usher Of the Daily journal of Commerce, a
daily newspaper OF general circulation. printed
ana published in The English language, at the
city and county of San Francisco. Stale OF Cali
1oInia and as such corporation is Interested IN
The contract for the public printing herein
after alleged, and was one Of The bidders Tor The
printing called lor by the bias published by The
defendants as Tie Board OF Supervisors Of said
city and county OF San Francisco
That The city and county Of San Francisco is
municipal corporation. duly Incorporated under
The laws OF The Slate OF California, and The de.
PENDANTS above named constitute the Board of
Supervisors and The legislative body OF such cor
poraIion, the said city and county OF San Fran
cisco.
That in accordance with the provisions OF the
laws oi the State OF California, commonly known
as The Consolidation AcI, it is The duty OF said
Board OF Supervisors, To let all contracts for the
euDlc printing TO be done for said city and
county, 10 the lowest bidder Offering adequate
security, after due public uotice, published for
mol less than hye days In at least TWO newspapers
In said ely and county.
Thai sand defendants as the Board of Super
NlsorS, In attempting 10 proceed in The manner
provided by law Tor the purpose OF letting con
tract for doing public printing TO extend from
January l, 1891, 10 January l. 1898. did on the
10Th day of November, 1880, prepare and cause
10 be published the following notice and pro-
posdl, 10 wit
Hereafter follows a copy of the advertise
ment Tor Proposals for doing public print
ing" and also copies of the BIDS rendered in
compliance with the invitation. and the ac-
ton taken by the Supervisors in accepting
the bid offered by William N. Bunker and
A c. Hester.
The petition for Intervention continues as
follows:
PUBLIC PRINTING DEFINED.
That in and by the notice for proposals,
azores said, the public printing was defined as
resolutions, orders aud authorizations OF the
Board Of Supervisors; all notices and advertise
ments required 10 be published by each OF The
municipal offices aud departments under the
contIOl Of the Board OF Supervisors. and all no
tees and resolutions pertaining 10 street Work,
while IN Tie same notice bidders are notified that
tile understanding IS that the party who gels the
contract Shall have The night 10 collect their
usual Iates from The parties interested OF az
Iected Tor all resolutions aud orders comforting
SPECIAL privileges, opening aud closing sire cts.
publishing official notices, changing established
grades or granting franchises.
That The SAID notice for proposals is Invalid
and not In aecoi dance with The provisions of
law; that lie said notice attempts TO define the
meaning of the words Of lhe statute, public
piiuiing, but does not do So
That The notice Tor proposals aforesaid is I'M
certain and Intended 10 misead The public. and
was specially pfepartd by The defendants with a
view 10 deceive the persons bidding for The pub
lie printing, and TO enable the said defendants
ana the nine members thereof 10 award The con-
tract 10 their favoTite paper.
That SAID defendants and nine members
thereof, Known or designated as the ";5oiid
Nine being two-lhiEds OF said Board of Super
yisOrs, have been and are guilty of fraud in the
preparation OF SAID notice Tor proposals. TO do the
public printing, and IN the notice calling for BIDS
and IN the acceptance OF The bids. aud in award
ing The contract for the public printing, aud OF
the following fraudulent acts, as this nteryenor
Is informed and believes and therefore alleges:
In attempting 10 define the words OF the
sisiule and me meaning OF . public printing"
and III specifying what IS included Hereunder in
one Fart OF said notice, and by specifying IN an
=. other part that tile same class OF Work may De
Charged Tor by the persons bidding therefor.
Also, IN specifying SAID notice, that The party
10 whom The contract Is awarded shall have the
right 10 charge The usual rates from tie parties
interested or affected for all resolutions and
orders comforting special privileges, opening and
closing streets, publishing ofhclsi notices.
changing grades, ETC., without specifying what
The usual rates are, have been or may be, thereby
leaving the publishers to determine what is usual
III raIes and 10 determine who may be affected
OF Interested in printing bills, and also to deter
mine what may be Included under the abbreyla.
ZION, etc.
Also. in deprving bidders ftom bidding by
making the call for bids uncertain aud uniniei-
= hslDie, thereby destroying competition.
DESIGNED BY THE SOLID NINE"
Also, said notice for proposals 10 do the public
printing is deceptive and Is designed by said de-
1endauis and The ''solId Dias' thereof TO favor
The Daily Report 10 the exclusion of all other
papers and publications, aud TO allow the said
newspaper TO have monopoly for The next Two
years Of the public printing as in the past, where
by said paper can charge and collect for at
least ninetenths of all the printing which is prop
erly pubic printing. and which said payer pre-
tends TO do for nothing-wnereby large profits
and commissions are made and reserved to the
said newspaper. at The expense and cost of the
property owners III said city and county.
That said Board OF Supervisors and the "solid
nine members, and two-lhirds thereof, are in
collision with the said Daily Stock Report and
The proprietors thereof, and have heretofore and
do now permit The SAID stock Report TO charge
and collect for notices, resolutions and public
printing, which under their present existing con-
tfacT should be published Tree Of charge. 1he
said defendants have prepared and caused to be
publl.h IN said Daily Report a large amount
of resolutions OF Intention 10 do street work and
other public work, which is public printing, and
which tue said Daiiy Report SHOULD do for moth
ing under their foiiner bid and contract which
Is now charged 10 property-owners aud collected
before any OF such wOIk is done OF contract let
therefor, and said board have deferred Tie pass
age and wrongfuly and frauduientiy postponed
The hBai passage of public resolutions because
the printing bill was not paid, 10 The great
wrong, injury and damage OF the city and tax
payers OF SAID city and county, and said board
are now 1raudulently causing a large amount of
printing to be done Tor the benefit OF said Daily
Report, neatly all Of which is charged for, and
al The usual and advertised rates OF 81 % per
square amounts 10 about $50 per column or
s13SS Ter page for four weeks printing, which
must be paid for by the citizens, property
owners and taxpayers OF said City and county.
That contract for the next Two years under
the specifications and terms now about to be let
VIII be a fraud upon the citizens aud tax payers
and upon this interyenor. and create monop-
oily IL favor Of said Daily Report, and be an I'M
position ana fraud upon the citizens and tax
payefs of sa1d city and county, and violation Of
Tie laws OF the State OF California
inht SAID Board Cf Supervisors did not award
the contract 10 the lowest bidder, and therefore
The SAID board is now by law compelled 10 re-
advertise for proposals de DOvO.
That your iuieryeuor ls The lowest bidder I'M
der said notice, and was entitled to the contract
therefor instead OF the stock Report
RIGHTS ENDANGERED.
= That II said defendant be permitted TO COM
plete The execution OF said Illegal contract for
. The period OF two years the rights and interests
OF Tie piopelly-owners VIII be endangered and
:. large burdens imposed upon the property owners
fog advertising, IN violation of law.
- That II said contract Is completed large
amount oil contracts must lie let for street work
involving many thousands OF dollars, aud many
resolutions and orders widening streets and
changing grades, opening and closing Streets
: must be passed and adopted by said Board OF
Supervisors, all OF which wifi result in numerous
: suits. And n said defendants be now eujoined
.. and restrained rom executing said contract be-
Tore TIE final consummatiou thereof 1t Will pre-
vent multiplicity OF suits. for which purpose
this lnttTyenOr prayS the relief claimed by the
plaintiff in this action.
hat the said defendants are endeavoring to
complete the said contract by holding extra
meetings OF said board prior 10 the LIST day Of
January, 1881, and VIII do SO unless restrained
by,otder OF this court and enjoined therefrom.
ms nierVenor Is interested In this action aud
IN The success Of the plaintiff herein Tor the rea-
sons aforesaid and this inteTvenor prayg 1udg-
inent: maj sald defendant, and each OF them
ana SAID Board OF Supervisors be restrained and
. peipetualiy eD1oined by order OF this court from
executing or completing The alleged contract for
SAID public printing or any contract therefor
under The notice for proposals aforesaid, aud
ihat any contract based thereon is VOID.
ASH & MATHEWS,
Attorneys Tor lDIervenor.
INTERVENTION NOT OBJECTED TO.
MIR. Ash said he claimed the right to file
: the petition under Section $751; Code of Civil
Procedure.
The Court inquired for objections and
William II. Piers0n, for the Supervisors
and Report. replied that he had none.
Alter reading the complaint Mr.. Pierson
argued that under Section 1923, Code of Civil
Procedure the Court had no power to grant