Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-11-17
SUPERVISORS CANNOT AWARD
BOND PRINTING TO JEFFRlES
Judge BordweI Orders Issuance of Temporary In
junction, Holding That While Fraud or Undue
Influence Is Not Proved, Giving of
Check Was Unlawful

| sentatives of the community with re-
spect to public matters, and this doubt
is certainly enlarged when the indt-
vidual is a resident and citizen of the
community.
when public interests are con-
cerned, it is the plain duty of the eiti-
zen to protect them, and he has no
right to take advantage of the mex
perience or want of information of pub
lie officers in order to obtain private
advantage, even though he may be
interested in securing a public contract.
The common welfare is always para
mount to individual interest"
Issues Made Plain
Regarding the proposed sale of the
bonds, bids for which will be received
next Monday, Judge Bordwell says:
1.-The court is asked to enjoin the sale
of bonds under the terms .specltled IN
the call for bids. The all-important
questions are First, is the proposed
deal against the interests Of the county
to an extent showing a gross abuse Of
discretion? And, second, was the adop-
ton of the plan for offering the bonds
tainted with fraud?"
While the evidence presented on the
question, says the court, is such as to
lead to the conclusion that the plan
adopted by the board for realizing upon
the bonds cannot be said to be for the
best interests of the county, neverthe-
less that fact 1-ould not justify the
court in interfering if the members OF
the board had acted according to their
best judgment.
Between September 8 and 2S, says the
court, the members of the board were
almost constantly considering the ques-
ton of how the bonds should be sold,
and, therefore. it cannot be said that
its action in calling for bids was taken
without information or consideration.
Continuing, the court says:
Il am not unmindful of the fact that
the records of the board of supervis-
ors show that the majority of all but
one or two of the standing committees
are made up from the three members
who voted for the resolution in ques-
ton; nor of the fact that these three
also stood persistently for the former
proceedings which resulted in the ac-
ceptance of the bid of September 8, and
that the other two members OF the
board have persistently voted against
all these propositions. And 1 have en-
deavored also to consider each and eV-
cry other fact presented by plaintiffs
in this action tending to show mala
f1des on the part of the members who
favored the resolution. But 1 am I'M
able to conclude that the resolution of
September % inviting public bids is
tainted with fraud or with neglect of
duty to an extent that interference of
the court is justified. And the appIi-
cation for a temporary injunction based
upon the charges OF bad faith will be
disallowed.
Check No Guaranty
There is yet to be considered the
question whether the provision of the
resolution requiring a deposit Of "a
certified or cashiers check of some
bank located in the county of Los An
geles for $4,000 as a guaranty for the
carrying out of the bid, is a discrim-
nation in favor of local and against
foreign bidders, and, therefore, being
a damage to the county, is illegal.
The contention that it is so is based
upon the assumption that a local
banking institution which might bid
for the bonds would be permitted to
deposit its own certified or cashier
check without cost or expense to 1T
self. I am doubtful if this view should
be accepted. In the first place, even
under the terms of the bid, it is my
Judgment that the board of supervisors
would not be justified In accepting;
and it may be presumed that 1t VIII
not accept the certified check of
bidder or of any bank interested in
making the bid. To do so would sim
plv be equivalent to receiving an adj
ditiOnal promise of the same person
This clearly would be no guaranty
at all
IF the resolution of the board call
ing for bids will allow local banking
institution bidding for the bonds to
deposit its own certified check, then
| clearly further proceedings under the
] resolution of September % ought to
I be enjoined. Either that or the board
/ j anfrv fy,1 anh
/ check issued by one who may make
or be interested in the bid with which
/ it may be deposited.
Undue Influence Not Proved
THE issues rendered by the com
plant to the effect that Mr.. Jeftrles
! was possessed of certain political in
fluence, which he had used or proposed
to use to the advantage of any MEM
Der of the board of supervisors, on
account of which three of them IA
vored the various measures adopted
for selling the bonds, may be dis
! missed without consideration. There
is no evidence here from which it
could be inferred that any such in
advantage. Moreover, the ruling on
this hearing does not require dis
cussion of this point"
The letting of the printing contract
/ to the JefrieS company, the court
says, does not appear to have been
at the instance of Jeffries primarily
but at the instance of the agent of the
buyers.
If the request did not entail an
expense to the county" says Judge
Bordwell, II doubt whether anyone
would object TO the members of the
board considering and being influenced
by it.
TT is conceded by counsel for the
defendants that the making of a con-
: tract with one bidder at a price sc
excessive as to shock the conscience
ought to be considered by the court
as evidencing such a disregard of the
obligations of the public officials thai
it would be the duty of court Il
intervene and prevent the consunma
; ton of the contract.
t LAS 1 have indicated, the price II
: be paid under the contract is an ex
r cess of 10 per cent over other bids tt
do work equivalent or better in ever!
, respect If 70 per cent is not to b.
+ considered sufficiently excessive t
shock the conscience, it may pertinent
ly be asked what. amount would b.
! sufficient"
= InjunctiVe Writ Ordered
In conclusion Judge Bordwell said
: 1.-THE evidence presented on thi
= hearing so strongly indicates the prob
lem that upon the final trial of tn
case a permanent injunction will b
issued against the carrying out of tn
contract, and also against the auditO