The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-12-05
MUNICIPAL PRINTING.
The Right of Supervisors to Seq
regate Questioned.
An Interrogation by the Court on the In
justice Of Mulcting Poor Debtors and
Property

The hearing of the matter of Frederick B.
Perkins 10 enjoin the Board of Supervisors
from awarding the city-printing contract to
the Report was resumed befo re Judge Hunt
yesterday afternoon.
Attorney Jennings applied to amend the
complaint in Intervention made by the Jour-
nal Of Commerce Publishing Company by
incorporating the resolution passed by the
supervisors in awarding said contract. The
application having been granted, he then
continued his argument in support of the
petition by asserting his belief that any
manner OF advertising mentioned in the
official proposal for bids should be desig-
mated as public printing, or. to make his
meant ng clearer, he declared that all street.
work advertising should be subject to the
same competitive bids as that advertising
which has been offered to be done free Of
charge
He submitted that the Board of Supervi-
sors is not proceeding according to law in
the awarding of said contract, nasmuch as
the contract is not being let to the lowest
bidder, and an injunction is the proper
remedy. The Supervisors are merely trustees
OF the city property and interests.
THE sHERIFF's PRINTING.
The Court asked if the Sheriff's printing is
included in the proposals received by the
Supervisors and Attorney PiersOn replied
that the Sheriff's printing would be done
Tree OF charge under the contract made with
the Report, as it is under the control of the
Supervisors.
Attorney Ash promptly stated that the
lees Tor Sharitf's printing had always been
| deposited in advance, and had never been
considered as public printing under the
| especial control of the Supervisors. He
read portion of the petition to sustain his
| argument that the Supervisors have every
| intention to segregate the Sheriff'S from
| tn public printing.
Mr.. Jennings concluded by stating that
the pivotal point is as to whether the Super
visors have the right to segregate certain
| branches of public printing for which full
| charges are to be paid Q
| Robert Ash, representing the Journal of
| commerce, then delivered his argument for
| the petition. lie reiterated his statement
that the Sheritf's printing is always paid for
IN advance by those who have business at
| that office, and there is no effort on the part
of the Supervisors to control the Sheriff 5
| printing. He declared that the street-Worl,
| printing. although public printing, Is so seq
regated as to permit the Report to charge
| full rates for it. Upon these grounds he
| based his right to petition the court to en-
| Join the Supervisors from awarding the
| printing contract TO the Report.
TWO POINTS SUBMITTED.
He Asked WHO is TO determine whether
| the charges for street-work printing are
| proper" and replied by asserting that the
| Superintendent of Streets had no power to
fix the charges, ana the matter is left en-
| tireiy TO the discretion of the printer hav-
| ing the contract. He pointed out how very
unjust to property holders is the reckless
| action OF the Supervisors in the matter. He
| then informed the Court that he was ready
to Set the case for trial, and added that all
his client wanted was new and proper speci-
hcatlonS tor public printing and new pro-
| posals fer bids.
The Court asked counsel for respondents
| to confine their arguments to the two fol-
| lowing points:
| Why the strect-work and Sherff's print
Ing is segregated from public printing?
| The property-owner and the poor debtor
| should be entitled to the same benefit of de-
| creased fees by competition in printing as
| the Supervisors.
The other point was that if the Super
| viSors ask Tor bids for public printing and
| then specify certain branches for which full
| charges can be made by the party awarded
| the contract, how can the Supervisors re-
| gard the specific branches as public print
| ing? If not public then it must be private
| printing. IL public printing it must be sub
! Jecs to competitive bids. Ii private print
| ing it cannot be considered under the con-
| troll Of the Supervisors.
IN BEHALF OF THE BOARD.
Attorney O'Byrne, representing the Board
| Of Supervisors, argued that the injunction
| should be dissolved, because it was granted
| improvidentiy and without cause.
The Court asked him if he claimed the
| awarding of the contract ministerial act
Mr.. OByrne replied, I'VE most assuredly
| do
why" reioined the Court, "your asso-
| ciate has declared it is a legislative and not
| a ministerial act"
Mr.. OByrne gave as one of his strongest
arguments an allegation that the petitioner,
| Frederick b. Perkins, docs not aver that
| he Is contributor to the municipal burdens
| OF the city" Counsel centended that as
street-work printing is not paid for by the
| Supervisors, but by property-o wners, it is
| but right that street-woTk printing should
| be segregated in the specifications. He
| declared that if the bid made by the Report
lsnot the lowest, then the awarding OF the con-
| tract is null and void. He believed, though,
| that the Reports bid is the lowest, all asser-
| tons to the contrary.
He appealed to the court to dissolve the
Injunction in order that TO difficulty might
ensue after the close of the year by the con-
| tract for printing being in an inextricab Y
| confused state for time.
Tie Judge announced that if the counsel
| would hand him their points and authorities
| IN writing TODAY he would give his decision