The San Francisco call., 1898-02-04
SUPERVISORS
 BLOCKED BY INJUNCTION Judge Seawell Com pels Them to Obey.
 the Law. Enioined From Awarding
 a Contract to J. F. Carroll. M. J. Ryan, the Lowest Bidder : for a Garbage Contract, Overlooked. 
 -- FINDS A REMEDY IN COURT Although Without the Limits of the Favored Circle He Gains
 His Point
M. J. Ryan, the Lowest Bidder for a Garbage Contract,
 Overlooked.
FINDS A REMEDY IN COURT
Although Without the Limits of the Favored Circle He Gains
 His Point

The Board of Supervisors has been brought up with a jerk in it's endeavor to fellow in the footsteps of the liar Dor Commission and award contracts, -~ not to tie lowest bidder, but to the one whom it is better pleased to please. Behind the illegal attempt of the Su- pervisorS to award a contract calling for almost double the sum asked by a bidder. who chanced to be without the limits of the favored circle no gigantic scandal exists, but there is implied in the action either determination on the part of the Supervisors to assist them zselyes, or, as can be deducted from cir oun1stances, an immediate friend, or an ''undeniable desire to violate the provi- sions Of the law now in existence for their government.
 . Judge Seawell yesterday decided that the Supervisors had no right to award contracts for the performance of any labor to any person but the lowest bid- der. The decision was reached in the action of M. J. Ryan against the Board of Supervisors for an injunction re- straining it from awarding a contract to P. J. Carroll for the removal of dirt, ashes and rubbish from the County Jail, jail yards, City Prison City Halls, City and County Hospitals, public buildings and public squares.
 On December the Supervisors ad- vertised for bids for the labor men tiOned, and on the 18th inst they were opened. M. J. Ryan was the lowest bidder, S169 month being his figure; and P. J. Carroll required $500 month before he would undertake the labor in- Yolyed to carry out the contract
 On December 20, notwithstanding the great difference between the figures of the bidders, Carroll was awarded the contract. Subsequently an order was prepared and drafted awarding the contract to Carroll and the bids of Ryan and several contractors were re- . 5ected. Ryan immediately declared that the law had been violated. He filed suit, asking that the board be en- Joined from awarding the contract to Carroll, and notwithstanding the vari- ous excuses advanced by the defendant decision was handed down in his fa- H0r. All that now remains for him to No in order to get the contract is to file an approved undertaking in the sum of S50O, as required by law, to pay for the advertising and as surety that he will carry out the provisions of the con- tract. The opinion of Judge Seawell on granting the injunction as prayed
 
 I will state briefly the conclusions at which have arrived on this motion
 There is no controversy as to the re- qurements of the law governing the award Of contracts by the defendants They must be let to the lowest bidder As Carroll was not the lowest bidder the contract which defendants intend Gas al- leged) to enter into with him would be illegal and void. The law cannot be evaded by any neglect of defendants to open all the bids. It is not therefore ma terlaI- whether all the bids mentioned in me complaint were in fact opened.
 Under the rule stated in Bradford vs San Francisco think that an action may be maintained by a taxpayer to restrain the defendants, not only from entering into an illegal contract, but also from passing an order awarding such a con- tract True, the courts have no power to control the legislative discretion of the Board of Supervisors: but upon the sub 1ect ot the award of contracts to the low est bidder they have no discretion what ever, If they make any award at all 1t must be to the lowest bidder. Upon the general proposition that the legislative restrained from mourning an illegal obli- gafien there seems to be no conflict of authority.
 It is alleged in the complaint that de- fendants intend to and will, unless re- strained by this court, pass an order awarding the contract to Carroll, and will also enter into contract with him. While no express threat as to the inten tions of the defendants Is alleged, it is dYerred that they have prepared the or der which they intend to pass, and also the form of contract for Carroll to sign. l think that the allegations of these pTeRarati25ns in connection with those Elich are not denied, are sufficient to Alstify plaintiff in applying to the court to restrain the defendants from passing the order and awarding the contract.
 An injunction will issue as prayed upon plaintiff filing an approved undertaking in the sum of $500.