People ex rel. Press Publishing Co. v. Martin

I cannot agree in the conclusion at which Mr. Justice Follett has arrived in the case at bar.

It will be observed that in the statutes considered and the cases cited by Him the language was essentially different from the statute under which this proceeding arises. In the case of The People v. Brennan ( 39 Barb. 651 ), the language of the statute (Chap. 227, Laws of 1863, §2) was: “No portion of the sums which shall hereafter be raised by taxes or assessments in said city and county of New York shall be paid for advertising, except the same shall have been incurred for advertisements in the newspapers authorized by the mayor and comptroller of said city, who shall designate four jiapers having the largest daily circulation, and any six others in their discretion, not to exceed ten in all.” The mayor insisted that the term “ daily circulation ” meant the largest general circulation, and the comptroller that it meant the largest circulation within the city; and the question discussed by the court was as to which of these contentions was correct.

It is true that in discussing the question it was said: “ But as the determination of the question of fact which four papers have the largest daily circulation, involves the consideration of evidence, and an adjudication upon such evidence by the mayor and the comptroller, we do not see upon what principle a mandamus can issue corn-man ding the comptroller to unite with the mayor in designating four certain papers, naming them in the mandamus.” But, as already suggested, the language then under consideration was essentially different from the one under which this application arises.

By the law of 1863 the mayor and comptroller were compelled to designate four papers having the largest daily circulation. There Avas no provision as to Avhat evidence or proof they should take, in order to establish the fact of circulation, and the courts held that they were bound to take evidence upon that point, which necessarily meant legal evidence, and to decide upon such evidence.

In the case at bar, the provision of the statute is, that the board in selecting the respective papers for such publication shall select those

So in the case of The People ex rel. Francis v. Common Council of Troy ( 78 N. Y. 33 ), section 3 of title 2 of chapter 813 of the Laws of 1873 was under consideration, which provided that the common council shall designate not to exceed four papers, having the largest circulation in the city, in which said advertising shall be done. And in that case it was held that no mode of ascertaining which papers have the largest circulation being pointed out, the question was left open as one of fact to be determined by the common council, and that the determination of such question of fact was a judicial duty, and though the common council might be compelled by mandamus to determine the facts, it could not be directed to decide in a particular way, however clearly it might be made to apj>ear what the decision ought to be. It appeared in that case that the common council designated the papers without any evidence before it as to which had the largest circulation, and it was held that it was the duty of the council to make the designation on evidence, and that its duties were judicial and not ministerial.

But in the case at bar they are not restricted to evidence, but are to get the best information they may obtain, thus leaving it discretionary with the board as to what sources of infonnation they may consider to be the best. Because the court is of the opinion that better information may be obtained, it cannot control the judgment of the board as to what it considers best.

And furthermore, in the case at bar, the relator had furnished proof which was clearly insufficient to entitle it to the designation ; and at the last meeting of the board on the last day on which the designation could be made, they presented additional and amended affidavits claiming that the board, without having any opportunity

.1 am of the opinion that the writ should be dismissed.

O’Brien, J., concurred.

(dissenting):

This is a special proceeding begun by a writ of certiorari, for the purpose of reviewing the final determination of the board of police in designating certain newspapers in which lists of nominations of candidates for offices to be filled at the general election of 1892 were to be published, and in refusing to designate the World, a newspaper published by the relators, as a paper in which such lists should be published, and in refusing to receive evidence as to which papers had the largest circulation.

No material disputed question of fact is presented by the writ, the papers on which it was granted and the return filed in obedience to the writ.

The World, the /Sim and the Daily News are newspapers published in the city of New York which, preceding the general election of 1892, advocated the principles of the political (Democratic) party which at the last preceding election cast the largest number of votes in this State. The Tribune and the Press are newspapers published in said city which, preceding the election of 1892, advocated the principles of the political (Republican) party that at the last preceding election east the next largest number of votes in the State. On the Gtli of November, 1892, a general election was held in this State, pursuant to section 2 óf chapter 680 of the Laws of 1892, the “ Election Law.” Prior to October twenty-fifth of that year certificates of nominations of candidates for offices, to be filled by the voters residing in the city of New York, were filed with the board of police commissioners of that city, pursuant to section 58,

On the 6th of September, 1892, the New YorkPress Association, which publishes the World, filed an affidavit with the board of police, which stated that the World was a newspaper published in the city of New York; that it advocated the principles of the political party that at the last preceding election cast the largest number of votes in this State; that the paper had been published for several years, and that it had the largest circulation of any newspaper published in said city, in the State of New York or in the United States.

At a meeting of the board of police, held October 25, 1892, a resolution was adopted providing that the lists of nominations filed and certified, as aforesaid, should be published in the Daily Netos and the Sun newspapers, advocating the principles of the political party which at the last preceding election cast the largest number of votes in this State, and in the Tribune and Press newspapers, advocating the principles of the political party that at the last preceding election cast the next largest number of votes in this State.

It is alleged in the petition upon which the writ was granted that: “ Said board of police commissioners of the city of New York, at the meeting of the said board on the 25th day Of October, 1892, when said designation of four certain newspapers for the publication of the list of nominations above mentioned 'was made, refused to allow' the production of evidence showing that the circulation of the World in the city of New York was larger than that of any other daily newspaper published in said city, and that its circulation was 75,000 in excess of that of the Sun or the Daily News, although such evidence was offered ; and that the said hoard of police commissioners of the city of New York, on said 25th day of October, 1892, refused to allow evidence to be produced showing that the circulation of the World was larger than that of any other newspaper published in said city, and that on said 25th day of October, 1892, no affidavit relating to the circulation of the Sun, the New York Daily News, the Tribune and the New York Press, or to the circulation of any other newspaper, except the affidavit hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘ B,’ was on file in the office of the said Board

This allegation, not being denied in the return, must be deemed to be true for the purposes of this review. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2138; People ex rel. Peck v. Commissioners, 106 N. Y. 64 ; People ex rel. McLaughlin v. Commissioners, Id. 676; S. C., 10 N. Y. St. Repr. 666 .)

It is also alleged “ that said Board did not obtain any information, as a Board, relative to the newspapers having the largest circulation within said city, other than that furnished by the affidavit of John Norris, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit ‘ B,’ as deponent is informed and verily believed.” Exhibit “ B ” is the affidavit filed by the relator September 6, 1892.

The commissioners in their return say: “ The said Board, in selecting the respective papers for the said publication, selected those which, according to the best information it could obtain, had the largest circulation within the city'and county of New York.” A copy of the record of the proceedings of the board upon making the designation is set out in the return, and it does not appear that they acted upon evidence.

The principal questions involved in this controversy are: (1) Is the action of the board, under the statute, judicial, and so subject to review by this writ, or is it ministerial and, therefore, not reviewable in this proceeding ? (2) Has the Press Publishing Company sufficient interest in the determination to entitle it as relator to prosecute this proceeding ? (3) In case the first and second questions are determined in favor of the relator, should the writ be quashed because the time during which the lists were to be published has passed ?

It is well settled in this State that when an officer or board is authorized to act in a ministerial capacity, that he or it may be compelled to act by a. writ of mandamus, but if the action involves the exercise of discretion, it is equally well settled that how the discretion shall be exercised cannot be controlled by the court. "When the act is judicial, it is the subject of review by a writ of certiorari.

The following is the section of the statute (Oliap. 680 of 1892) under which the designation was made :

“§61. Publication of Nominations. — At least six days before an election to fill any public office * * * the board of police commissioners of the city of New York, * * * shall cause to be published in not less than two nor more than four newspapers within such * * * city, * * * a list of all (nominations of candidates for offices to be filled at such election, certified to such * * * board by the Secretary of State, or filed in the office of such * * * board.

“ * * * One of such publications shall be made in a newspaper which advocates the principles of the political party that at the last preceding election cast the largest number of votes in the State; and another of such publications shall be made in a newspaper which advocates the principles of the political party that at the last preceding election cast the next largest number of votes in the State. The clerk or board, in selecting the respective papers for such publication shall select those which, according to the best information he can obtain, have the largest circulation within such * * * city. In making additional publications the * * * board shall keep in view the object of giving information, so far as possible, to the voters of all political parties; and in no event shall additional publications be made in two newspapers representing the same political party.”

That the action of the board, under the section of the statute quoted, is judicial, seems to have been conclusively settled in this State.

Section 2, chapter 227 of the Laws of 1863, provided :

“ § 2. No portion of the sums which shall hereafter be raised by taxes or assessments in said city and county of New York shall be paid for advertising, except the same shall have been incurred for advertisements in the newspapers authorized by the mayor and comptroller of said city, who shall designate four papers having the largest daily circulation, and any six others in their discretion, not to exceed ten in all.”

This case was reviewed at considerable length and approved in People ex rel. Francis v. The Common Council of Troy ( 78 N. Y. 33 ), which arose over the construction of a clause of section 3 of title 2 of chapter 813 of the Laws of 18Y3, which provided that: “ The common council shall designate not to exceed four newspapers, having the largest circulation in the city, in which the city advertising shall be be done.”

Upon proof that the Troy Times had the largest circulation in the city of Troy, a peremptory writ of mandamus was granted at Special Term, commanding the common council to designate that newspaper as one of those in which the city advertising should be done. The order of the Special Term was affirmed by the General Term ( 17 Hun, 20 ), but it was reversed in the Court of Appeals on the ground that the duty imposed on the common council by the clause quoted was not ministerial, but judicial. It was said : "No mode of ascertaining which papers have the largest circulation is pointed out by the statute, and consequently that question is left open as one of fact to be determined by the common council.”

It was also held : “ Where a subordinate body is vested with

In the last case cited, as in the one at bar, the common council designated the papers without any evidence before it as to which had the largest circulation, and on the same day, but after the designation had been made, the proprietors of the Troy Times presented to the common council an affidavit showing that it had the largest circulation in the city, but that body refused to reconsider its action.

Under the statutes construed in the cases cited it was distinctly held that it was the du iy of the boards to make the designations on evidence, and that their duties were judicial and not ministerial. The procedure by which the board of police must be guided in making its designation, is much more definitely pointed out in the statute under which they acted than was the procedure under either of the sections considered in the cases cited, and clearly indicates, that it is the duty of the board to act on evidence.

The provision is: “ The * * * board, in selecting the respective papers for such publication, shall select those which* according to the best information he (the board) can obtain, have the largest circulation within such * * * city.”

The word “ shall ” is mandatory, and considered in connection with the context it cannot fairly be construed to mean “ may.” What shall the board do ? The language of the statute furnishes the answer : (1) It shall determine which papers advocate the principles of the two political parties which cast the largest number of votes at the last election. (2) Which of these papers have the largest circulation in the city.

How shall these questions be determined ? Again the statute, answers the question. Upon “ the best information he (the board) can obtain.” The information is to be obtained, and it is to be the best. The best information as to which of several newspapers has the largest circulation cannot, under any authority, legal or metaphysical, be intuitive, or evolved from the inner consciousness of the members of the board. Neither have they any right to guess what the fact may be, but it is the duty of the board to obtain by inquiry* and receive such evidence as may be offered as to which newspaper

Has the relator a sufficient interest in the determination to entitle it to prosecute this proceeding? By chapter 237 of the Laws of 1884 the provision in the charter of the city of Troy, which was discussed in People ex rel. Francis v. The Common Council of Troy (supra), was amended so as to read as follows :

“ The common council shall, at its second regular meeting after the general election in each year, designate not to exceed four newspapers published in said city, and having the largest circulation within its corporate limits, in which shall be published all the municipal advertisements, official notices, legal notices and the common council proceedings, including all advertisements and notices emanating from the common council, or from any department of the city government, or any officer of the city, except as is otherwise provided in section six of chapter thirty of the laws of eighteen hundred and eighty. The papers so designated shall be known as official newspapers. The oath of the publishers of said newspapers, ■and the business records of such newspaper offices for the three months preceding such designation, shall be required by the common council as confirmatory of the actual circulation of the said newspapers before such designation is made by the common council.”

The common council, in defiance of this statute, designated certain newspapers without receiving any evidence as to which of the papers published in the city had the largest circulation therein. This action was taken on the theory that the statute was not mandatory. The publishers of the Troy Times obtained a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing the action of the common council. It was alleged in the petition that the Troy Times when the designation was made, had, and for many years previously had, the largest circulation of any newspaper published in that city. The position was taken in behalf of the common council that the relators had not such an interest in the question determined as to entitle them to review it. In discussing this question the court said:

In this reasoning we concur. Upon the question of interest it is alleged by the relator, and the allegation is not denied' in the return, that the publication of these lists “ is of large pecuniary value to the paper that may be designated to publish the same, to wit, of the value of the sum of $12,880 and upwards, and the Press Publishing Company has been deprived by the aforesaid act of the Board of Police Commissioners of the city of New York of such pecuniary return.”

The evidence shows that the World had a larger circulation than any other newspaper published in the city of,New York, which, if true, with the undenied allegations referred to, establishes that it had a pecuniary interest in the determination of the question. Under the statutes which provide that soldiers shall be entitled to certain appointments in preference to those who did not serve in

The conclusion reached in this case, that a person has no interest in the performance of a service because it must be presumed that the compensation provided is an exact equivalent for the services, does not seem to us well founded. In the first place, the premise was not established, and, secondly, if it had been, it does not follow that a person has no right to redress when prevented from performing a contract or rendering service which he is entitled to perform or render, because the compensation is no more than a fair equivalent for the service. For the infringement of his right he is at least entitled to recover nominal damages, and the question as to how much he may recover is one quite apart from his right to maintain an action.

In Welch v. The Board of Supervisors (supra), it was said: ■“ The duty (to designate the newspapers) is imposed upon the board; they are the custodians of the power, but no one can insist upon its performance or exercise, because he happens to be at the time the owner and proprietor of a newspaper.” The correctness of this proposition is admitted. The person complaining must show, either that his paper should have been designated, or that he had been denied the right given by the statute, to have his claim to be so designated considered.

In Smith v. Yoram (supra), the opinion of the court upon this question rests solely upon the authority of Welch’s ease, no additional reasons being given. The judgment, however, is not placed solely on this ground. It is said : “ All other sources of information are open to them (the board), so that even if plaintiff had such

We think the relator had, in the case at bar, sufficient interest in the determination made by the board of police to entitle it to review the decision.

This brings us to the final question : Should the writ be quashed because the time during which the lists were authorized to be published has passed ?

The determination was made October twenty-fifth, and the writ was granted November 2, 1892, and the return was filed on the sixteenth of December following. It is insisted in behalf of the board that this case falls within the principle of the decisions which hold that when a final determination has been so far executed that a judgment under a writ would accomplish nothing, it should be quashed. This rule has been so frequently applied to proceedings under writs brought to compel the inferior tribunal to affirmatively perform a duty relating to a private right, that it may be said to . be a well-settled canon of procedure in this State.

But the proceeding before us was not instituted solely for the purpose of compelling the board of police to order the lists printed in the World, but to obtain a reversal of an erroneous decision, which, when made, was injurious to the then existing rights of the relator, would be injurious as a precedent, and as a bar to proceedings, civil or criminal, against the members of the board, and it does not fall within the principle above stated.

In People ex rel. Porter v. Tompkins ( 40 Hun, 228 ), it was said: “When it (the writ) involves the inquiry whether the action and determination were legal, and should be set aside or confirmed, it may be seen that the writ may be effectual after the powers of the tribunal or officers have ceased, as to the matter in question, because it is a mere matter of review, but when the purpose of the proceeding is to have the direction of the court for those to -whom the writ is issued, to do some act, by way of correction of an error, it must, we think, be within the power of such officer or tribunal to perform the act.”

In The Matter of Bracket ( 27 Hun, 605 ), a writ of certiorari was issued to review the conviction and sentence of the relator by a court martial. Before the hearing, the court martial amended its proceedings and revoked the warrant issued for the collection of the fine; notwithstanding, it was held that the relator was entitled to a judgment reversing the proceedings of the court martial, with costs.

In People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. ( 28 Hun 543 ) —the freight case — a writ of mandamus was refused at Special Term. ( 63 How. 291 .) On the review of the order at General Term it was insisted that the time had passed when anything could be ordered to be done under the writ. It was said : “ It is suggested that the time has now passed when such a writ can be of any valuable effect. This is probably so, but we are governed by the record in disposing of the appeal and not by subsequently occurring events. The appellants labor now under a judgment alleged to be injurious to the rights they possessed when it was pronounced, and harmful to them as a precedent. If erroneous they are entitled to have that judgment reversed, and to be indemnified, in the discretion of the court, for the costs incurred on the appeal made necessary by the errors.”

The determination of the board of police was voidable when it was made, and then affected the relator’s pecuniary interests and denied a right, and the relator is entitled to have it set aside. The sole

The refusal of the board of police to receive evidence as to which of the papers were entitled to be designated, and to determine the question on evidence, was erroneousj and its determination illegal, and it is set aside, with fifty dollars costs to the relator.

Writ dismissed.