The record-union., 1898-10-12

| duties, and that Mr.. DeVllnS conten-
ton, If accepted by the court, would
destroy the value Of all future man
| damus proceedings. Suit to compel
| them to advertise for bids for printing
the Great Register could not be brought
until after the law governing the case
| had been violated.
The attorney contended that the con-
tract let was invalid, inasmuch as it
was a private and not a public docu-
ment, and that being invalid the con-
| tractors might repudiate it and leave
the county without copies of the Great
Register on election day. There was no
force, he said, in the argument of the
| Supervisors that it was not convenient
| to advertise for bids, and that they, in
their wisdom, had discovered a more
| convenient method. He thought 1t was
perfectly proper that the court should
step In and act as a check on the Su-
pervisors in their attempt to violate
the law. He called attention to Sec
ton of the County Government Act
of 1897, which provides that any and
| all contracts entered into contrary to
the provisions of the Act, should be
null and void.
Mr.. White contended that if the
clerk of the Board of Supervisors hap
pened to turn the copy Of the Great
Register over to the printer eighteen in
| stead of twenty-six days before cleo
ton, nobody would set up the claim
that his act was invalid. Mr.. White
cited another section which specified
that copy for ballots, ETC., should be
turned over to the printer a reasonable
time before the day of election, in or
der that the work could be completed
before needed.
The attorney cited authorities to
| show that any Of those parts of an
Act which are in conflict with the Con-
stitution shall fall, and that accord
ingly the general nature Of the Act
| questioned by Mr.. Devlin would hold
| good, even though the special provi-
| sions were declared unconstitutional.
He contended that it was evidently the
| intention of the Legislature to enact a
| general law, and that the provisO eX-
| cepting San Francisco or counties or
cities and counties having more than
| 10000 inha abitants, would not, if de-
| clared unconstitutional affect that
portion of the Act which made it gen.
eral in all the counties in the State.
Inl other words, he held that though the
election provisions applying to San
| Francisco should be annulled it would
not affect the election law applying to
other counties.
In reply to a question by the court,
Mr.. White said he could see no con-
flict between Sections "a and 4043 of
the Political Code.
Mr.. White said he hoped the court
would decide the matter without taking
it under advisement. He said if the
matter was decided at once, bids could
| be advertised for and the Great Regis
ter printed in time for the election. He
hoped the court would enjoin the Su-
pervisors to comply with the law, as to
sustain them in their action would give
a chance for boodhng and jobbery to
creep in. He did not mean to infer
that Sacramento County's Supervisors
were boodlers, but he had heard of in
stances away off in Isolated localities
where such things had been done. He
said that such corner" work was not
| conducive to clean work in public Off
GERS, and that it was the duty of the
court to put a check upon the Super
visors and give protection to the tax
payers of the county. He said he was
|
sustained HIM in his contention that at
least $1,000 would be saved to the
county.
In his closing argument Mr.. Devlin
contended that the Act which named
supplies for counties, including print
ing, etc, covered the entire question.
The Act, he said, provided for job
printing, supplies, etc, but not for
! nrinfipcr fhh paofc+ay he Gu
preme Court had held that Section 81
was intended to apply to printing the
Great Register, and in it no provisions
were made for advertising for bids.
He said that Section 81 was specific,
and the one under which the Supreme
Court had authorized Boards of Su-
pervisors to print the Great Registers.
He said if it had been intended TO al
low Section 4043 to stand, there would
have been no need for Section 81. He
said 1t was not a question of ordinary
advertising, but a question Of absolute
necessity, and Boards of Supervisors
had been given extraordinary latitude
in order to absolutely insure the print
ing of the Great Register-had been
given authority to reject offers from
incompetent or irresponsible printers
without fail, be in the booths on elec-
ton day. He stoutly contended that
Section 81, and that only, applied to
printing the Great Register, and gave
Boards Of Supervisors authority to
print the same.
Mr. Devlin contended that the Coun-
ty Government Act could not possibly
apply to San Francisco. because the
La
he argued that if the law could not ap-
ply to San Francisco, it was not uni
form, and as soon as a provision de-
stroyed the uniformity of an Act, under
the Constitution it destroyed the entire
Act. If the court could strike out a
portion of an Act and not interfere
with the Constitution it would be all
right, but the Constitution provided
that the Legislature should pass uni
form county government laws. The
Constitution could exempt a county
from the provisions of the County Gov
ernment Act, but the Legislature was
bound by the provisions Of the Con-
stitution,. and an exception Of one coun-
ty from the provisions of the Act by
the Legislature would render void the
: whole Act, as it destroyed the uniform
ity Of the measure.
Judge Johnson intimated that to elm
mate that proviso of the Act referring
to San Francisco, that the law would
apply to|6he entire State, including Sar
Francisco. and would, therefore, be
uniform.
Mr.. Devlin argued that such a rule
would not maintain, because the Legis-
lature had intended to exempt Sar