The morning call., 1890-12-11
THE CALLS CALENDAR.
THURSDAY
MISSED THE POINT.

The decision OF Judge Hunt in the matter
of the award of the public printing is, to
say the least sad commentary on the laws
of California. The court held that the
action OF the Solid Nine in awarding the
contract was wholly illegal-that the pro-
posed contract was tainted with Illegally,
and was null and void and if awarded 10
any OF the competing bidders could not be
sustained-that it would be in derogation
Of law, in violation of the Boards written
specifications, inconsistent with the bid ac-
cepted, in fraud of the rights of competing
bidders who had relied upon the integrity
and good faith of the proposals and in re-
straint of competition, Yet that the court
was powerless to stay the hands of the
hooters. Here, then, is the position matters
have assumed. We have a Board of Super
Yisors the majority of whom, known as the
solid Nue." have banded themselves to-
gether 10 railroad through and fix upon the
city one OF the most Infamous jobs that has
ever been fOisted upon long-Sufferlng COM
munity. As set forth in the Intervention of
the Journal Of Commerce filed in court and
verified by The affidavit of prominent citi-
zen the citizens and taxpayers of this city are
annually mulcted to the extent of nearly one
hundred thousand dollars under the pre-
tense ON the partof the Stock Report of do
ing the public printing .for nothing" The
scandal had becC me so rank that before the
last election no political party dared to come
before the people without plank in their
pia form 10 The effect that this infamous Job
must be stamped out. Yet, as soon as the
election was over the Solid Nine, seeing that
it WAS their last chance, determined, in de-
fance OF public opinion, of courts and of
layN that for pprtaIn
good and sufficient they would saddle the
city with this eXecrabe job and rifle the
purses Of the private citizens and taxpayers
for two years to come. Taking up the
gauntlet thrown down by the Solid Nine,
What are you going to do about ?'' so
defautly reiterated by their ring organ, the
Stock Report. Mr.. Frederic B. Perkins sued
out the writ of injunction dissolved by
Judge Hunt on Tuesday last.
The judgment is based on four deci-
sions of the Supreme Court, viz. ::
Linden VS.. Case, 46 Cal. 173; Mccoy
VS.. Brant. 80 Cal 259; Merriam vs. Su-
pervis ors OF Yuba County, ~ Cal. 517
and WiDn VS.. Shaw, decided on Friday last
In each and every one of these decisions the
injunction was sought to restrain an action
of the Board Of Supervisors which would
involve the Illegal payment of moneys out
of the treasury of the county, and while
this right is conceded and upheld by the
courts OF other States and by the Supreme
Court of the United States, yet as the Judge
states the Supreme Court of California has
denied the right of the tax-payer to enjoin
illegal payments out of the public fund.
The reasons for denying this right
are set forth in the decision of Merriam
VS.. the Supervisors Of Yuba County, viz. :
that the county treasury is amply safe
guarded. As there stated: 1.-THE Auditor
ought not 10 draw his warrant for an
illegal demand, even although allowed by
the beard, and, even if he does SO know
lngly and willfully, he is personally re-
spcnsible and may be made to refund the
money thus Illegally paid. The same rule
applies to the Treasurer. The warrant
drawn by the Auditor would be no excuse
for the payment of claim known to be not
a legal charge. Then it is the duty of the
District Attorney to look after the affairs of
the county and 10 commence suits to recover
money illegally paid out of the treasury. If
the Supervisors willfully appropriate money
for purpose not authorized by positive law
they are liable eivilly aud criminally. If
other safeguards are needed the Legislature
can provide them-it is not the province of
the courts" Here then are the reasons
why, the Supreme Court of this State has
denied the taxpayer the right to re-
strain Illegal payments out of the county
treasury. Whether the principles there
enunciated are. sound law or otherwise it is
not our purpose and it would be useless to
consider. What we do contend is that thew
do not apply 10 the Perkins case He was
not seeking TO restrain illegal payments out
of the treasury of the city and county.
which the Supreme Court says is amply
safeguarded and for that reason an in
junction wo uld be withheld. He was simply
trying TO stop job intended TO "cinch''
private citizens and taxpayers, and as one
OF such Taxpayers, pleading his own inter-
ests, as well as those of other taxpayers,
was seeking the aid OF the court to prevent
the use OF the municipal governmental ma
chinery to give legal color to rifiing the
purses OF Those interested or affected" by
the regular rate" advertising The reasons
assigned by the Supreme Court for denying
an injunction In the above cases are the
reasons why it should be granted in Mr..
Perkins case. The private citizen is not
protected by these safeguards. There are
no auditors and treasnrers and district at
torneys to protect him. He is met SINGLE
handed and alone confronted by the bill of
the ring organ, limited only by this extent
of its rapacity. The ring organ is backed
by the municipal authority. and nothing is
left for the taxpayer but to pay whatever is
asked. This was the vital point in the
case, but the Judge apparently failed to
grasp it. He did, however, give full and
explicit judicial Interpretation of the statutes