Section 31 of the charter of the city of Seattle provides that:
“A daily newspaper of general circulation and published in the city, to be styled ‘City Official Newspaper,’ shall be designated in the following manner: The city clerk shall, on the first Monday in November in each year, cause to be published for ten consecutive days, excluding Sundays, in some paper of general circulation in the city, a call to the owners and managers of newspapers for sealed proposals to do the city printing for the then ensuing next*553 fiscal year, each of which proposals shall he accompanied by bond with not less than two sureties, in the sum of five thousand dollars, approved by tbe comptroller and corporation counsel, conditioned tbat if the proposal be accepted tbe party proposing will, during tbe period mentioned in bis proposal, well, seasonably, and faithfully cause to be accurately printed and published, according to law, in a certain daily newspaper (naming it) of general circulation in tbe city and published therein, all and singular the matters and things required by law to be published in the city official newspaper of the city of Seattle. . . . and thereupon tbe council shall, by resolution, announce the names of all parties whose proposals have been offered, and tbe terms of their proposals respectively, and designate as city official newspaper tbat newspaper whose manager or owner has offered the lowest proposals, with duly approved bond, and such newspaper shall, at the beginning of tbe next ensuing fiscal year, and during said year, be such city official newspaper; . . .”
Pursuant to this provision of the city charter , tbe city cleric duly issued and published a call to the owners and managers of newspapers, published in tbe city of Seattle, for bids for tbe city printing for tbe year 1903. In response to such call, tbe respondent, a taxpayer of tbe city of Seattle, and tbe owner and publisher of Tbe Daily Bulletin, duly submitted its bid, accompanied by its bond in tbe sum required by tbe city charter, in which it offered to do tbe city printing for tbe specified time at tbe rate and for tbe price of sixteen cents per inch for each first insertion and ten cents an inch for each subsequent insertion.
Among the bidders was Tbe Times Printing Company, the owner and publisher of Tbe Seattle Daily Times. Tbat company proposed to do tbe city printing dn Tbe Times at tbe rate of fifty cents an inch. Tbe city council, notwithstanding this disparity in the bids, designated Tbe Seattle Daily Times as tbe official newspaper of tbe city of
It is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant that The Daily Bulletin is not a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Seattle, within the meaning of § 31 (above quoted) of the city charter, and that the court erred in holding the contrary. The court found, among other things, that The Daily Bulletin, printed, owned, and managed by the plaintiff, is a daily newspaper, published in the city of Seattle every day except legal holidays, and has been so published for more than eight years; that it is a four-page paper, each page having five columns of regular printed matter; that the pages are each thirteen inches by twenty inches; that it is devoted to the dissemination of news on a great variety of topics of interest to the general reader, but gives special prominence to the dissemination of legal news, including proceedings in the supreme court of the state, and of the federal, state, and city courts sitting at the city of Seattle; that it gives a complete report, both of the pleadings filed in cases pending, and also of cases tried, and the result of such trials, and all new suits filed; that it publishes the proceedings of the board of public works of the city of Seattle, showing the board’s action in all matters relating to street and other improvements and assessments against real estate on account thereof, and all matters of interest in relation to real estate; that it regularly pub
The court in its findings specifically designated the institutions, trades, business, kind of property, etc., regularly advertised in The Bulletin, which we need not particularly enumerate. The court further found, that The Bulletin circulates among all classes of people in the city of Seattle; that it has between 750 and 1000 subscribers in the city of Seattle, and is daily delivered to such subscribers, with the exception of legal holidays, and is daily read in the city of Seattle by about 3000 persons; that it daily contains a resume of the world’s telegraphic news, briefly stated; that it contains an editorial column devoted to the discussion of events and topics of interest to the general public; that it has been, by order of the superior court of King county, frequently designated as, and declared to be, a newspaper of general circulation; that for more than three years no
It is asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant that words in a statute or charter are presumed to be used in their ordinary and popular signification, unless there is particular reason for assuming they are not, and that, in the ordinary acceptation of that term, The Bulletin cannot be said to be a newspaper. Assumjing that the rule of law as stated by counsel is correct, and that the framers of the city charter used the word newspaper according to its usual acceptation, the question remains, what is its usually accepted meaning ? Counsel for appellant answers this ques-. tion by quoting the following definition from The Century Dictionary:
“Kewspapeb.—A paper containing news; a sheet containing intelligence or reports of passing events, issued at short but regular intervals, and either sold or distributed gratis. . . .”
“ISTewspapers may be classed as general, devoted to the dissemination of intelligence on a great variety of topics, which are of interest to the general reader, or specialin which some particular subject, as religion, temperance, literature, law, etc., has prominence, general news occupying only a secondary place.”
“A newspaper, in the popular acceptance of the word, is a publication issued at regular stated intervals, containing, among other things, the current news, or the news of the day.” 21 Am. & Eng. Ene. Law, p. 533 (2d ed.).
According to the above definition, it can hardly be doubted that the publication in question is a “newspaper,” in contemplation of the charter of the city of Seattle. Indeed, we have found no case in which a publication containing intelligence on as many topics of interest to the public as The Bulletin regularly contains has been held not to be a newspaper. In the recent case of Hall v. Milwaukee,
It is next claimed that, even if this publication is, in contemplation of law, a newspaper, it is not a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Seattle, and for that reason does not meet the requirements of the city charter. If it were true that the word “general” is equivalent to “universal,” there would certainly be much force in this contention. But these words are not synonymous. The word general is derived from “genus," and technically relates to a whole genus or kind, or to a whole class or order. But its more usual meaning is, common to many; widely spread; prevalent; extensive, though not universal; as, a general opinion; a general custom. Webster’s International Dictionary.
In Blair v. Howell,
“The only difficulty, if there is any, arises upon the question as to whether Bowen’s recognition of the children was general and notorious, within the meaning of the statute. . . . It is proven that Bowen sometimes denied that the plaintiffs were his children. In such denial he certainly did not recognize them. It is claimed, therefore, that his recognition was not general, but, at most, was limited and partial. But everything is limited and partial which is not universal, and ‘general’ is not equivalent to ‘universal.’ ”
“By a ‘newspaper of general circulation’ the legislature certainly did not intend a newspaper read by all the people of the county. As a matter of fact, every newspaper is in greater or less degree devoted to some special interest. Eo one, however, would claim that because a newspaper should, for example, be the organ of a certain political party, and especially devoted to the interests of such party, it would not, therefore, be a newspaper of general circulation. Tet such a newspaper is, to a large extent, read only by the members of the political party whose doctrines are advocated and expounded in its columns. There is no doubt that where a publication is devoted purely to a special purpose, it would be an unfit medium to reach the general public. A medical, literary, scientific, or legal journal is professedly but for one class, and that class but a comparatively small part of the whole population; and it would be manifestly unjust, as well as against the letter and spirit of the statute, to use such a journal for the publication of a notice affecting the property or personal rights of citizens in general. The newspaper before us, however, is no such professional or class journal. While it is a law publication in a certain sense, and of particular interest to the legal profession, yet its character, as shown by the evidence,*560 makes it of general interest to the community at large, especially to that part of the community likely to be concerned with matters in courts and other public business.”
See also: Kerr v. Hitt,
It is suggested, however, that it is not in fact a daily newspaper because it is not published either on Sundays or legal holidays, but we do not think the point is well taken. It was held by the supreme court of California, in Richardson v. Tobain,
“The term was used, and is to be understood, in its usual popular sense ; and in this sense it is dear that a paper which, according to its usual custom, is published every day of the week except one, is a daily paper. Otherwise a paper which is published every day except Sunday would not be a daily paper. The term, in its popular sense, does not admit of this construction.”
The same rule was announced by the supreme court of Minnesota, in Tribune Publishing Co. v. Duluth,
We come now to the consideration of the appellant’s next contention, namely, that it was for the council alone, and not the court, to determine which of the several bids was the lowest. In support of this proposition appellant cites and relies on Times Publishing Co. v. Everett,
“We have this case upon the complaint alone, and, under its allegations, the conclusion cannot he escaped that there was, on the part of the council, a gross disregard of the interests committed to it in maldng its award. It found nothing hut that the hid of Bradley was the lowest and best, but the complaint shows affirmatively that the appellant was, in every respect, qualified and competent, and was equally entitled to consideration with its competitor. Yet, with the bidders standing on an equal footing, the contract was awarded to that one whose bid was almost four times that of his rival, without any apparent excuse or reason but the arbitrary will of the council.”
So in this case, we see no reason or excuse for awarding the contract to the appellant “but the arbitrary will of the council.” It would be extremely unfortunate for the inhabitants of our cities if the respective city councils should be permitted, under the guise of “judicial discretion,” or otherwise, arbitrarily and unreasonably to disregard the plain provisions of statutes or charters. This court has not heretofore sanctioned any such proceeding, and is not inclined to do so in this instance.
It is further insisted that the court erred in refusing to permit appellant to prove the average price paid in Seattle for printing notices and advertisements such as those in question, and also in refusing to allow appellant to prove that its bid was a reasonable one. We do not think the court erred in either of those rulings. The matters so sought to be proved were not material to the issues to be tried and determined, and the proffered testimony was, therefore, rightly excluded.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
Fullerton, O. J., and Dunbar, Hadley, and Mount, JJ., concur.