Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-11-17

notable victory for the taxpayers
of Los Angeles county was gained yes
terday when Judge Walter B0ruMeii
of the superior court handed uoWn
decision in the bond injunction SUITS,
temporarily enjoining the poaru VI
Supervisors from awarding the con
tract for printing the good roads ponas
to the w p. Jeffries company ne
ruling is that, in the sale OF the poii 3i
themselves, a certified eheck on ~
bank making the bid Is no I isn 90 ~,
that the terms of the sale VIII pc al
ried out. and is, therefore, unlawful
This it is believed, will have a ten
dency to broaden the field OF PROS
pective bidders. 1890. -
The Injunction suit to prevent the
carrying out of the Jeftrles Ptin IIisS.
contract was filed by j. W. Ldhusdy
and John Mushrush, property owners,
represented in the trial by AttorIieg
Willard E. Lyons. 1t was contehueu
that Jeffries possessed political lnnu-
ence over certain members OF lne podIu
of supervisors, and that ne TOOK a t
vantage of this influence to secure the
printing contract This issue, however
is dismissed by the court. there pelIlg
no evidence he says, that any such
influence was used.
Nevertheless the court declares the
Jeffries bid of $500 is 10 per cent
higher than that of the Security Bank
Note company. and the action of the
board in accepting the bid of the JeiI-
ries company was equivalent 10 nl 5ooo
ing a gift to Jeffries of more than $lVoQ
of the taxpayers money. SUCH gllt
is ruled to be prohibited by the state
constitution.
Martins Course Criticised
Regarding the private sale of the
bonds. September 8, the court says the
making and acceptance OF the Dlu ull
that day showed that the supervisors
gave slight consideration to the prop-
lem of the disposition of the bonds'
and that II was the result of the
manipulation of ]. r. Martin, an agent
of the two purchasing houses. Whlc1
began prior to the bond election anu
was carried on assiduously to the very
day of the sale. Criticising this action
ON the part of Martin, the court ex-
presses serious doubt whether, under
any circumstances, anyone has right
To attempt by secret negotiations 10
drive a keen bargain with those IN
charge of public matters, ana remarks
that this doubt is enlarged when the
Individual is a resident ana clllzeh VI
the community.
Referring to the resolution of Sep
ternber 2S, inviting bids, which pro-
ceeding was sought to be enjointed oY
Eugene German and others, Judge
Bordwell says he is unable to concluae
Temporary Injunction upon the charges
of bad faith is disallowed. The con-
tention by former Judge John u.
Works, representing the plaintiffs, that
the deposit of a certified check or tne
bank making the bid is unlawful, Is,
however, upheld.
Bids for the purchase of the pohds
will be received Monday, the time for
their receipt having been EXTENDED d
week ago. 1t is probable that adVer-
tisenents for furnishing the bonds may
also be prepared at that time, as the
court expresses the belief that on the
final trial of the case a permanent IN
junction viii be issued
Court Bound TO Act
After setting out the grounds of the
Injunction complaints, Judge BordWeil
saws that while the limitation on the
exercises of judicial power over legls-
Iative and administrative acts Is deh-
nitely recognized, nevertheless. II the
board of supervisors should attempt to
commit some act outside of It's power
or to dispose fraudulently of pubic
property. or to do an unlawful act
which would result in public loss or
increase the burden of taxation, the
court, upon application should eXer-
else it's power of restraint.
Upon representation that three mem
faith. Judge Bordwell says he per-
mitted the fullest inquiry into all mat
tiers leading up to the acceptance OF
the offer made at the private sale. IN
this connection the court says;
at is sufficient for the purposes OF
this opinion to say that the evidence
clearly shows that the members of the
hoard of supervisors, individually or
collectively, gave but slight and per-
functory consideration of the problem
Of the disposition of the bonds prior 10
the eighth day of September.
1.-THE making and acceptance of the
bid on that day, without competition
was the elimination of most persist
ent and studied effort on the part CT
fine agent of the two buyers and Of
their principal officers to obtain the
consent of the board and its legal ad-
wiser.
suThe manipulation on the part of the
agent began prior to the holding OF
the bond election in July and continued
most assiduously down to the very DAY
of the offer and acceptance Septem-
Der 8.
Gwen a man quite experienced in
financial matters. and, indeed, familiar
in a general way with the intricaci IS
of a deal in a large issue of municipal
bonds. had he given no more lnVesti-
cation to the particular transaction ~
question than was given by the super
yisors, would have been but child u
the hands of these astute buyers anc
their agent.
mo doubt the buyers considered thai
they had right to make the best bar
gain possible for themselves But, un'
der the circumstances. it is no wonde
that there was an outburst of public
indignation when the deal became
known.
CUP to that time it had been care
fully guarded as a secret at the IN
stance of the bond buyers The mild
est criticism that could be put on tn
transaction would be to say that /
was most unfortunate, and tnat tn
neople had a right to expect bette
treatment from their official represen
tatives. and also more consideration
from the buyers. who were prominen
citizens of the community
"It may be seriously doubted If, ur
der any circumstance, anyone has
right to attempt, by secret negotia
tions. to drive keen bargain with tn
legislative and administrative repre-