The herald., 1896-10-07
BOARD Of Supervisors
Trouble in RubiO Canyon
Protective District
landowners FILE THEIR PROTEST
Against the Construction Of a
Water Canal
LEGAL STATUS OF THE CASE
The Contract for Furnishing Election
Supplies Let Yesterday
The Times.Mirror Company Would Have
Liked More Time
BY Readvertising for Bids Three Times
the County Will Have to Face
LEGAL STATUS OF THE CASE
The Contract for Furnishing Election
Supplies Let Yesterday
The Times.Mirror Company Would Have
Liked More Time
BY Readvertising for Bids Three Times
the County Will Have to Face
Loss on the Final Action

The contract for furnishing election
supplies was let yesterday by the board
to Glass & Long, at the rate of $3.50 for
each Of the 1853 precincts.
There being oily two bids put in and
one not being accompanied by a certi-
fed check, 1t was incontinently thrown
out, the bid of Glass & Long being of
necessity accepted. The word neces-
sity is used advisedly, for the reason
that time will no longer permit readver-
tisement.
The Times-Mirror Company, not hav-
ing had time enough to figure on the
proposition, made application to the
board that the opening Of the bids be
delayed for half an hour, but ii o'clock
being the hour specified in the adver-
tisement for opening the bids, the re-
quest Of the Times representative was
denied.
AS a matter of economy the board
would have done better If 1t had ac-
cepted the lowest bid on the fffst batch
of bids received for furnishing the elec-
ton supplies. That bid was for $2.S5
per precinct, as compared with $3.50
per precinct bid by Glass & Long and
by its acceptance there would have
been a saving of $6s.S5 on the contract.
The board, however, thought a lower
price could be obtained and the bid was
readvertised. Next time there was only
one bid put in, not including bid from
San Francisco, and again readvertising
was In order. The third time occurred
as already stated, and the contract was
let. asu
Some folks are never happy or con-
tented, and 1t SENS as If the property
holders in the Rubio Canyon Protective
district didn't exactly know what they
90 want.
The district was formed some time
ago, the lines drawn by the board of su-
pervisors, and the various stipulations
of the law complied with. No protests
were filed, and as the winter rains Oft
times do much damage to the fruftand
other crops in that neighborhood, the
efaction to the vicinity.
ba The plan of this canal had been pre-
pared, the levy made, and right there
the objectors began to cry out against
the enterprise. They were not proof
against the demand to pay their as
property holders purporting to repre-
sent a majority of the land owners of
the district, was sent to the board of
supervisors positively protesting"
against the water ditch which is cal
culated to receive the drainage of the
heavy rains.
These petitions also stated that
meeting had been called for last evening
at Lamanda park in order that united
protest be made against the projected
Improvement.
The supervisors are not engaged In
doing charitable work, and are not SEEK
ing to benefit neighborhood that does
not want to receive benefit. At the
same time the board did desire light on
the legal status Of the case and mad,
appeal to the district attorneys offlca.
The following opinion was written by
Chief Deputy District Attorney Hol-
ton:
9'Tn the matter of the protest of T..
II. Strafford and others against "the
ditch" referring, I suppose, to the pro-
posed improvements in the Rubio Car
yon Protection district. I am Of the
opinion, first, that inasmuch as that the
protection district Is already formed,
the plan of improvements adopted and
the tax levied and in process of collec-
tion, there Is no law authorizing the
board of supervisors to consider said
protest, even if it had been regularly
made and duly presented. The pro-
test is dated September s, 1896, which
WI dS d leSdl HOlludy, anu pTOIeSlS
against "the ditch" which Is very in
definite and uncertain.
Notwithstanding this fact, however,
! and assuming that 1t had been made
on legal day and had specified the OBJ
jects of the protest with reasonable GER
tainty, am of the opinion that it comes
too late.
Section III of the act providing for
the formation of protection districts,
etc, of the statutes of 1895, page 24s
provides: Any person interested OBJ
jccting to such work or improvement,
or to the extent of the district of lands
to be affected or benefited by such work
! or improvements, and to be assessed
to pay the cost and expenses thereof,
may make written objections to the
same within ten days after the expira-
ton Of the time Of the publication Of
said notices. etc,
THE notice having been duly pub
lished, and ten days having elapsed
after the publication thereof, and no
| objections having been made or flee
with the board, the protection district
| was duly formed and declared to be a
protection district by the board in con .
| formity with section Nv of said act
Since which time commissioners have
! been appointed in pursuance of sall
act, and have reported to the board
the improvements to be made and the
approximate expenses of the same. a
levy has been duly made upon the prop
erty embraced within the district AMI
Is now in the hands of the tax collector
of this county. who is proceeding in
conformity with said act to collect the
taxes necessary to carry on said i'm
| provements. l lasf
l. 'In the meantime, in pursuance Of
said act, the board of supervisors have
advanced from the general fund OF the
county $4,000 to aid in carrying on said
jv,ov vHrn IN 70 fr,a tl,a
taxes for the same are collected. I
| am, therefore, of the opinion that the
proposed protest at this time should not
be considered by the board of SUPER