The record-union., 1898-10-13
SUSTAINED THE SUPERVISORS
THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED
TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.
Judge Johnson Yesterday Rendered
Decision Sustaining Their
Demurrer.

Judge Johnson yesterday rendered
decision in the case of Emmett Phillips
against the Board of Supervisors, ask
ing for a writ of mandate to compel
them to advertise for bids for printing
the Great Register He sustains the
demurrer of the board, and decides that
the law does not compel them to ad-
vertise for bids, and that they had au-
thority to contract with D. johnston
d Co. to print the register
After the decision was rendered, IN
answer to a question, Judge Johnson
said that if the price paid for the print
ing was considered too much, MI
Phillips could apply for an injunction
to prevent the Auditor from signing
the warrant to pay for the printing
until the matter could be settled by the
courts.
Following is the text of the decision:
In the Superior Court of Sacramento
County, State of California - Depart
ment Two, Hon. Matt. f. Johnson
Judge
Emmett Phillips, petitioner, VS.. Board
of Supervisors of Sacramento County,
respondents.
This is an application for a. writ OF
mandate to compel the Board Of Su-
pervisors of Sacramento County to adj
vertise for proposals to print the Great
Register.
The respective counsel have argued
this case quite deliberately. 1 regret
that the time given me for consideration
is SO limited that l cannot give the
matter that consideration which its i'm
portance deserves.
AS to the policy of the board in let
ting contract for such a large amount
without first submitting it to the COM
petition of persons engaged in that
character of business this court has
nothing to do. That is a matter left
to the people who selected them and
the board to settle.
1t is left to the court, if it can, to
determine out of the various statutes
upon this subject what at the present
time is the law which should govern.
In 1874 the Legislature enacted a
very salutary law governing the &C
tions of the Boards of Supervisors, and
known as Section 4047 of the Political
Code. 1t is as follows: THE Super
visors must contract for % all county
printing; (2) all books and stationery
CD all supplies for county institutions
And all contracts must be made with
the lowest bidder, and after ten days
public notice that such contracts wit
be let The bidding must be- by sealed
proposals.
This section has remained upon our
statute books until the present time, or,
in other words, it has never been re-
pealed except by implication.
The respondents claim it has been
repealed by implication, by the provis-
ions of Section 81 of the County Gov
eminent Act, statutes 1897, page 46S.
That section reads: The board must
provide printed copies of the Great
Register poll lists, poll books, blank
returns and certificates, proclamatiOns
of election, and other appropriate and
necessary appliances for holding all
elections in the county, and allow rea-
sonable charges therefor and for the
transmission and return of the same to
the proper officers" This Act was
approved April /, 1897, and is the
latest legislative Act upon that sub
ject. The fact that that section is
found in former County Government
Acts will make no difference as to its
being the latest will of the Legislature,
for we find the Act of April 1st was
enacted as a new Act, and in no sense
a re-enactment of a previous Act, or
the continuation of an existing Act. As
intimated by Commissioner Van CHEF
in Smeltzer VS.. Miller, in lib Cal, 16I,
il becomes the latest law upon the SUBJ
ject.
1t will also be necessary in this con-
nection to consider subdivision 81 Sec
nf he q + nrOVidRc
that sealed bids shall be received for
stationery, clothing and other supplies
and that the board shall annually fix
the price for which the county shall
be supplied with job printing, etc. In
the case of Franzen VS.. County of San
Diego, 1O1 Cal, $40, the Supreme Court
intimate that printing Of the Great
Register does not come under the term
of lob printing" but that we must
look to Section 81 for instructions as
to how that work shall be performed
In other words, they say where there
are in an Act specific provisions re-
lating to a particular subject they
must govern in respect to that sub
ject. as against provisions in other
parts of the statute, although the lat
ter standing alone would be broad
the more particular provisions relate.
Section 4O41, SO far as the printing
of the Great Register is involved, is
abrogated by Section 81 of the Act
The matter of submitting such WORK
to the lowest bidder is not in har-
nony with the idea that the board
must allow a reasonable sum there
for
The lowest bid might be out of al
reason. because of it's excessive high
price. or we might take the other side
of the question: the lowest bid might
be entirely too low to sufficiently rec
ompense the bidder. 1t was the evil
dent intent of the Legislature that the
worker should receive no more nor nc
less than what his work was reason
ably worth when ii enacted Section 81
Then Section 81 is the law which gov
ems unless some other Act is found
which varies some of the terms Of its
provisions
It is claimed by petitioner that Sec
ton 1919 provides for the printing OF
the Great Register by the lowest re-