The record-union., 1898-10-13

sponsible bidder. Counsel for the re-
spendent strenuously contends that
mat section and the four preceding
ones nave been declared unconstitu-
tlonal by our Supreme Court in the
case of Denman VS.. Broderick, III Cal,
TO- am not prepared to concede this
point wholly. / deem it unnecessary to
discuss this question because there is
certainly conflict between Section 81
OF the County Government Act and
Section 1919, p. p. c.. Section 1919 and
the preceding sections constitute an ar
tcle in the Political Code, and was
enacted as new article in 1895. 1t at
tempts to create a Board of Election
Commissioners in the counties and
cities; therein providing that the Board
OF Supervisors shall constitute Board
OF Election Commissioners providing
further in the expenditure of money in
respect to elections where the service
or supplies exceeds the sum of SOU,
the Board of Election Commissioners
shall advertise for bids and let the
same to the lowest responsible bidder.
II this Act is valid and was ever in
force it was superseded by the Act of
April 1, 1897, before cited, because it
is the latest law, and expresses the
latest legislative will upon this sub
Ject, that is Section "a, which says
that the Board Of Supervisors must pro-
vide printed copies of the Great Reg
lister, etc, and "allow reasonable
charges therefor In other words, the
Board of Supervisors must act and not
the Board of Election Commissioners,
When it comes to providing copies of
the Great REGISTER
The County Government Act, dealing
as it does with the conduct of coun-
ties and their organization, must gov
err when it comes in conflict with the
provisions of the code, which in deal-
ing with other subjects attempts to
control it's provisions. Section 1919
deals with the subject of election, pro-
yides for it's conduct, says what things
are necessary, who shall procure them,
but the County Government Act pro-
yides for the method of their procure
ment and we must apply the test
adopted by the Supreme Court, in
Frandken VS.. San Diego County, supra.
That is where an Act is created for
specific purpose it must prevail al
though if it did not exist there might
be other provisions in other Acts that
might be operative.
AT the outset of the argument / was
Inclined to think that Section 1879 gov
erned in this case. But upon ref1ec-
ton / think Section 81 of the County
Government Act is the one that con-
trolls the Board of Supervisors, that
they are to be governed by its provis-
ions That there is no limitation upon
their acts except they must allow
reasonable sum therefor" In this con-
nection 1 conceded too much to counsel
in his argument yesterday as to the
discretion allowed to Boards Of Super
yisoTs. In the conduct Of the business
affairs of the county, they are allowed
full discretion limited by legislative
restriction; that is, all matters where
discretion is given them no one can
gainsay what they do, but where there
is legislative restriction, expressed or
implied, they must act within it's
bounds
In this Act there is a legal restriction,
they must allow reasonable sum for
such service as that in question, they
cannot arbitrarily say what is or what
is not reasonable; it is a subject for
judicial Interpretation and court should
intervene to prevent them from giving
or persons dealing with them from re-
ceiving unreasonable sums for such
work.
However the petition for the writ in
this case is not sufficiently explicit upon
this subject; it does not state wherein
the proposed contract is unreasonable
in price. The relief asked for is to COM
pei the board to advertise for bids,
which I cannot see my way to grant.
The demurrer to the petition will be
sustained.
MATT F. JOHNSON, Judge.