Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1906-01-26
PAPER LOSES IN
SUIT WITH CITY.
LONG BEACH GETS DECISION
IN SUPERIOR COURT
Judge 5ordweI Decides Legislative
Act Regarding Printing Con-
tract Is According TO
Constitution

Following one OF tho nercest legal bat
Ties in the history of Long Beach, Judge
Bordwell Of department nine of tho
superior court yesterday handed down
a decision In favor OF the city i'm the
| fight made by the Daily Telegram re-
garding the letting OF the printing con-
tract.
With the decision the Injunction
against the publishing of the contract
was withdrawn and for the first time
in months the city trustees viii have
! q chance to publish their ordinances
| aud announcements.
The trouble started several months
ago and most of the succeeding dis
agreements of the beach city have been
outcomes of the printing FIGHT.
! When the letting of the contract was
| first proposed. the Daily Telegram. a.
newspaper which had been i'm existence
only several months, entered the lowest
pa, While the Evening Press entered
the highest
There was disagreement in the
| board of trustees and Mayor Emo and
| trustee Losee voted for the Telegram
| Inc contract was given to the Press
and the Telegram filed suit stating that
q certain clause of the state law, pro-
| hibittng the letting of contract for
printing to newspaper which has not
been in existence at least a year, was
unconstitutional.
Text Of Decree
| Following was the decree handed
| down yesterday:
I'm response to a request of the city
of Long Beach for bids for the printing
ana advertising for the ensuing year
the plaintiff presented it's bid offeringto
do the advertising required by said
city during the ensuing year for eight
cents per square of two hundred and
thirty-four ems, which was the loves
| bid presented.
THE defendant, the city of Long
| Beach, refused to enter into a contra ct
with the plaintiff pursuant to the said
bid, basing it's refusal upon the ground
| that the newspa per published by the
plaintiff was not a newspaper of gem
eral circulation as prescribed by law.
Plaintiff brings this action to re-
strain the defendant city and it's officers
from entering into a contract for said
advertising with the next highest bidder
| and to obtain q decree of this court
commanding the officers of said de-
PENDANTS corporation to enter into a
contract with the plaintiff pursuant
with its bid.
|
the plaintiff being fully equipped 20
| perform the services. no doubt 1t was
the lowest bidder, is responsible and
has performed all things required by
| law and as such lowest and responsible
| bidder to entitle it to a contract If it
Is newspaper of general circulation
as defined by law.
Question for Court
ut is, of course, possible that a news
paper established less than one year
may have a greater circulation in the
municipality than one of longer stand
ing. The former might give a wider
publicity than the latter to notices etc,
printed therein and it may be true that
the paper published by the plaintiff has
such greater circulation. But the ques-
ton for the court to consider is,
whether or not the Legislature trans
crossed the restriction placed upon it
by the constitution when it declared
that one of the requisites of a news
paper of general circulation must be
that it has been established one year.
THE argument is not without force,
but not entirely convincing and it is a
rule of presumption that the legislature
has not violated the constitutional re-
strictions imposed upon it and in case
of doubt the courts must resolve that
doubt in favor of the constitutonality
of the legislative act. Hence l con-
clude that the section complained of
is not unconstitutional and that judg-
ment should go for the defendant"