Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-21

should bear the Allied Printing Trades
council Union label of Atlanta, Ga.
ana required all bids for it's printing to
oe MADE In accordance with that ordi-
iahce. In obedience to its requirements
the City Comptroller made contract
with the Pease Printing COMPANY a
member of the Union. to do certain
printing. Stein, citizen and taxpayer
OF the city, brought suit to enjoin the
carrying out of this contract, The low
er court decided in his favor and the
city appealed.
The court said:
AT the hearing 1t appeared that there
were In the city four union and fifteen
non-union printing establishments, and
that the comptroller. solely because of
this ordinance. refused to entertain
bids for printing from the proprietors
of any OF the latter. The evidence was
conflicting as to the value of the work
embraced in the contract with the
Pease Company, but the preponderance
of 1t was to the effect that it was worth
less than the price to be paid that COM
pany; and that the city, if the nom
union printers had been allowed to
compete for it. could have made a more
advantageous contract The charter of
the city does not require the mayor and
general council to let contracts for
public work to the lowest bidders, but
under Its provisions the municipal au-
thorities are, as to such matters. in
vested with wide discretion. The in
junction was granted, and the defend
ants excepted. AS the contract was
made strictly in pursuance of the ordi-
nance, the validity of the former de-
ponds upon that of the latter. If,
therefore the ordinance was void, and
1T was right to enjoin the further en-
forcement of 1t, there was certainly no
error in preventing by injunction the
contamination OF the contract. The fall
of the ordinance necessarily carries
with 1t the agreement. which had no
other source of vitality. In our judg
ment. the ordinance was void and the
Injunction was properly granted. 1t
cannot be seriously denied that the or
dinance tended to defeat competition
and encourage monopoly. Indeed, the
evidence introduced before the trial
judge fully warranted a finding that
such was not only the tendency. but
the actual effect. of the ordinance. 1t
is not within the power of municipal
authorities to enact legislation of this
kind. On the contrary. with all respect
to the members of the city council,
we are constrained to hold that so do
ing is IN unwarranted act, which calls
| for judicial interference. We cannot
| agree with the able and distinguished
counsel for the city that 1.-The ordinance
attacked and enjoined below amounted
only to direction by the mayor and
general council to the ministerial Of
ficers of the city to place the orders for
public printing with printers using a
thing more than a mere direction"
It has the form. and was intended TO
have the effect, of law: and. il valid.
would. until repealed. bind the members
of council as much as 1t would the
subordinate officials Of the city. These
members could not, with propriety.
disregard it so long as they permitted
it to stand upon the municipal statute
hook: and the mere power to repeal it
certainly did not prevent its operation
on all concerned II, In the absence of
such an ordinance, the contract In
question had been let to the Pease
Company, it could not properly be said
that the making of 1t was an abuse
of discretion on the sole ground that
the price of the work was too high. IT
would require an extreme case to justi-
fy the courts in setting aside a munic-
ipal contract on such ground, when
made under a charter.
The vice OF the ordinance now under
consideration is that 1t cuts off the
mower to fully and freely exercise that
very discretion which the public rood
requires the mayor and general council
TO exercise in making contracts. 1t
effectually ties their hands. and pre-
vents their availing themselves of op-
nortunitieS to make advantageous
agreements In behalf OF the city which
1t is idle to say would not be presented
were this ordinance out of the way.
We cannot, therefore escape the con-
clusion that In adopting this ordinance
the mayor and general council exceeded
their authority. Affirmed.