The herald., 1897-02-16
AN INVALID BID
GarIand's Being on the Board Of Education
Rules Him Out

Judge Van Dyke yesterday passed up
on the questions involved in the suit of
William r. Staats against the city of
Los Angeles-an application for writ
of mandate directing the council to ac-
cept the petitioners bid and award him
a franchise for erecting poles and string
ing wires for conducting and transmit
ting electric energy along the public
streets-in a lengthy opinion.
On August "a 1896, c. f. De Camp filed
an application for franchise for the
purpose stated, and the council there
upon advertised that it would receive
proposals for the purpose of such fran
chise under and in accordance With the
provision of the statute of March 2S, 1898.
Four bids were received, as follows: c.
e. DeCamp. $3.50; w. NJ. Garland. $2157;
the petitioner Staats, $1101, and Fred A.
Walton, S1025. On November 2, 1896,
Garland presented a communication to
the council. in which he stated that the
bid made was really for Mr.. William
H. Allen. jr., and that he had no inter-
est directly or indirectly in the same or
in the franchise if granted, and that
Allen would be the real owner On De-
cember Sth the committee of the coun-
ell reported in favor of granting the
franchise to w. NJ. Garland as the agent
of w. Fl. Alien, jr, and it was ordered
that the ordinance be prepared grant
ing the franchise accordingly. During
all of said time w. Nj. Garland was
member of the board of education.
BY section Is, article OF the city char
ter. mo councilman or other city officer
shall be interested directly or indirectly
in any contract to which the city is
party, or made by any officer of the city
on behalf of the city" A violation of
this provision is MADE a misdemeanor,
and subjects the party to removal from
office and is disqualification to hold
office.
1T is admitted" says Judge Van Dyke.
ION the part of the defense that MIR. Gar
land was an officer of the city within the
meaning of the foregoing provision at
the time the bid was made, and that he
continued to be such officer until the
first Monday in January 1897 and il
is conceded on the part of the petitioner
that as matter of fact Garland has no
interest in the matter and no improper
means were used or intended on his pant,
but it is contended. nevertheless, that
his bid is void, as being in conflict with
the provisions of the charter and against
public policy"
After examining many authorities
bearing upon the point. the court con-
tinues: Il think the rule is ineXorable
that a transaction of this kind is void
(CarldnO 5 Dlu), ana II CdAUbl Dt COl-
sidered in any such case. whether it
would result in benefit to the public or
of 20 interest to the officer concerned.
1T is further contended on behalf of
the petitioner that the Garland bid be-
ing void, he, the petitioner is entitled
to the award as being the highest bid
der Is the plaintiff the highest bidder
as contended? No authority is cited,
but it seems TO be assumed or taken for
granted that if the Garland bid be void
it is as though no bid had been made
higher than that of the petitioner, and
that he is, therefore. the highest bid
der The law is, and always has been
in thus state. that plurality, or highest
vote. elects to office; that is the person
receiving the highest number of votes Is
elected
IF. in the case of an election, the
highest vote, being a nullity, does not
have the effect of making the next in
number the highest vote, in contempla-
ton of law, it would seem by analogy
that where the highest bid is a nullity
the next should not be considered as the
highest"
Under these circumstances Judge Van
Dyke holds that the petitioner Staats is
not entitled to the writ prayed for, even
conceding that the Garland bid be illegal
and void. The alternative writ was
therefore ordered discharged, and the
mandate denied.