The morning call., 1891-07-15
WARNING TO STREET CONTRACTORS.

A correspondent who owns property in
She district he refers to, and is considering
the best means of preventing it from being
buried under the cost of alleged improve
ments, asks THE CALL if street work done
under an Illegal advertising contract must be
paid for. Following is the complaint:
Editor Gail: Contractors who are liz the habit
OF doing street work should bear in mind that
property-holders VIII not allow The Stock Report
10 skin them with its theving and illegal print
iGg contracts That sheet agrees to do the city
printing for nothing, and mases $1,000 month
by charging property owners who have Improve
ments TO make from five to ten prices for adver-
Using the same. Contractors have lost great
deal of money 10 the past By improving property
against The protests OF The owners The protest
ants appealed TO the courts and were sustained,
while The contractors were blnkrupted, many OF
whom died, may say, bFOkeahearted from the
heavy losses sustained A similar fate may await
some Of our street contractors If they bid for
street work illegally advertised II costs the
prOueity-owners as much, II not more. for ad-
vertising IN the swiHdltng Stock report, which
agrees 10 do the city printing fee, for do
Ing the real work, as the fol,Owin VIII show:
Advertising in Stock Report 10 establish grade.
crossing Of Douglas and Seventeenth streets, as
per bill semi to club, S3S; advertising cuVertS
month and south side of same, s38; advertising
the sewering of tue same crossing, S3S. As the
crossing is not yet graded assume that when Ii
comes Up for bids there VIII be another S3S for
the Stock Report, making the sum total of S152
for advertising one crossing in the little Stock
Report. which agrees TO DO the city printing free.
AS Judge Hunt has already decided that this
printing contract is Illegal. contractors are rnn.
ming risk 10 do any work under il.
Our correspondent will understand why
we cannot answer his question authorta-
lively. Since one department of the Supe-
rior Court decided that the contract under
which the Stock Report is making the ex-
cessive charges was Illegal but that the
Court could see no remedy for it. and since
another department of the Superior Court
decided that the action of the Board Of Super
visors in setting the Illegal contract aside
was illegal, a good deal of risk attends pre-
dietion of what will be the result of suit
in that court. We recall nothing more la
mentable than the decision of Judge Hunt
that his court could furnish no remedy TO pre-
vent the consummation OF an act which he
pronounced to be Illegal Confidence in the
courts as a guardian of the interests Of the
people was thereby impaired. What mis-
chief Judge Hunt left undone Judge Hoge
proceeded TO do. 1t would be folly to pre-
diet what will become of a suit commenced
in either of these branches Of the Superior
Court Contractors clearly take some
chances in doing work under an ordinance
that is illegally advertised, but whether the
courts would uphold a refusal to pay for
such work is one Of the things that will be
known only when the Judge that has charge
of it gives his views OF the case.