The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-17

pany Va the city Of Everett Is one o.
extraordinary Importance Section 1Sa OF
she general statute. provides that IN elsies
Of the third class the coancA snail an
nuaiiy. 81 stated time. contract for doing
al city printing and advertising. which
contract shall be ies 10 the losest bidder;
advertising TO be done IN newspaper pEsn-
ted and published IN such city. The city
Of Everett. by ordinance. nxed the stated
time - April /; required that the nevspa-
per aus. hare been published ~ least one
year before the date Of contract. and that
the contractor must give bond rs the coun-
Gil might Determine: and directed the city
clerk to give notice, by publication. oil TIE
annual letting. Pursuant 10 this ordl-
nance tbs clerk gave notice thai bids Tor
the city advertising would be received
a. certain time. The notice stated
no particulars of what would be required
IN the way of advertising. or how the bids
should be framed. At the proper time TWO
bids were presented. one By appellant. and
one by James ~ Bradley. Appellants
bid was for solid non pareil at p cents per
inch for the 6rst insertion and ID cents Tor
subsequent insertions. Bradley's bid Was
for the same kind of type az IL
per inch for the first and %
cents for each subsequent insertion
Other propositions Of the two bidders
were substantially the same. except that
Bradley offered that II the contract were
awarded TO him he would publish the Of
fetal proceedings of the council free of
cost to the city, and the city delinquent
tar list At the rate OF cents for each de-
scription. The supreme court in its de-
cision says:
THE council awarded the contract TO
Bradley by resolution. declaring him 10 be
| the lowest and best bidder therefor. There
was no other finding concerning either OF
the bids. Appellant in his complaint
| shows these facts, and that contract
| based upon his bid has been entered into
between the city and Bradley, and also
| that il is a taxpayer in the city OF Everett.
| The object OF the action, as stated IN the
| prayer, is to enjoin the performance OF tho
contract, and TO require the city to enter
| INTO o contract with itself as the lowest
| bidder for the advertising.
-Four grounds OF demurrer were aileged:
81. No jurisdiction Of the subject mat
| ter.
az. Defect of parties. in that the indl-
| vidual members of the council were not
made defendants.
80. Several causes of action improperly
| joined
4 a.
| cause OF action.
I'VE are not advised upon which of the
| grounds the court sustained the demurrer,
| but only the last two are argued here
As TO the third. it is urged that the APP
/ pellant is seeking relief in dual capacity,
| and inconsistent relief at that. As tax
| payer 1t would enion the performance of
the contract on the ground of its illegal
ity. and because, by reason Of the high
| price agreed TO be paid for advertising In
| face Of the lower bid, il will suffer wrong
in excessive taxation. In this capacity II
| has no interest in its own bid,
| and the result of the snit would
| tract. But as bidder its object Is TO
| secure q contract tor itself based upon
| its low bid, and il has no concern
whether the city 60 on with the
| Bradley contract or not. There il
| no question but that the complaint was
| framed with the double purpose of enjoin-
| ing the defendants ut the suit of q tax
| payer, and of procuring a mandamus for
it's benefit as a bidder; and the brief
! frankly comedies this. This was an at
tempt to improperly join two causes of
action, to the second of which Bradley
was neither a necessary nor proper party.
| But If there was statement of one good
| cause of action. and an attempted state
| ment of another which called for a species
OF relief which would not be conceded un-
| der any state of the pleading, We think
| demurrer for misjoinder ought not to lie.
| 1t must be promised that this complaint
| is not divided into separate counts or
causes of action. bnt is continuous state
ment OF facts, only two paragraphs OF
which. the 2lst and 9th, together with
the prayer, indicate design 10 claim re-
| lief other than by injunction. Strike out
such portions of the paragraphs men
toned as pertain to the appellants pros
pectiye profits under its bid, and the
| prayer for mandamus, and there will be
left only q taxpayers complaint for in
| junction, which, IN our view, Is the only
| sustainable cause OF action.
THE generally accepted rule is that the
courts will not, by mandamus. compel q
municipal corporation TO enter into con-
tract with one who shows himself TO have
been the lowest bidder In q competition of
this kind.
"The agents of municipal corpora
| tions must maintain themselves within
the law in the matter of awarding con-
tracts, and If through fraud or manifest
error not within the discretion conIided TO
them, they are proceeding TO make con-
| tract which will illegally cast upon tax
| payers a substantially larger burden Of ex-
| pense than is necessary, the courts will
| interfere by injunction 10 the effect of re-
| stricting their action TO proper bounds.
Even under the strict language Of the
| statute requiring the contract for adyer-
/ Using TO DO let to the lowest bidder, il
| must be conceded that there would be
some discretion of judicial character
| left 10 the council. A guide TO the exer-
else OF this discretion was enacted In ordl-
| nance No. 3. providing that the newspa-
/ per must have been published ut least one
year, and that bond should be given by
/ the contractor. So, also, il the proposed
contract were TO cover many different
/ items. bid for at different rates, and the
quantities were not previously aseertained,
/ IL would take an extremely strong case 10
| call for equitable inIerpositIon; as, also
| If the bids were for large amounts,
| and the differences between bids were
small and inconsiderab.e. The response
| bllity of the bidder, his experience and
| his facilities Tor carrying OUT contract
may be looked into, and an honest deter
minatlon that on the whole his bid viii
/ not be. in the long run. the lowest, will be
| entitled TO control. Bat in every such
/ case. in order TO protect itself from inter-
/ ference. the contracting agent should
judgment render the apparently lowest
/ Did not the lowest in fact
ave have this case upon the complaint
alone, and under its allegations the con-
! cluston cannot be escaped that there was
/ on the part of the council gross disre-
/ gard OF the interests committed TO IL in
| making its award. II found nothing but
/ that the bid Of Bradley Was the lowest
| and best, but the complaint shows affirm
/ atiyeiy that the appellant was IN every re-
/ specs qualified and competent and was
/ equally entitled 10 consideration with its
/ competitor. Yet, with the bidders stand
| ing upon an equal footing. the contract
4 was awarded 20 that one whose bid Was
almost four times that of bis Tivai, with