People Ex Rel. Press Publishing Co. v. Martin

Earl, J. In the Election Law, chap. 680, sec. 61, it is provided that, at least six days before an election to till any public office, the board of police commissioners of the city of 24ew shall cause to be published in not less than two, nor more than four newspapers within such city, a list of all nominations for •candidates for offices to be filled at such election, and that “ 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 county or city. In making additional publications the clerk or 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.” *234 The relator is right in claiming that the police commissioners in designating the newspapers act judicially; that their determination may be reviewed by writ of certiorari, and that the relator had sufficient interest to institute this proceeding; and while the time has long since passed when any decision in this matter can have any practical, efficient operation, we will, in view of the public importance of the questions involved, overlook that circumstance and proceed to the determination of the matter upon its merits upon the facts as they appear'in this record. The police commissioners cannot, under this ^.ct, arbitrarily designate the newspapers without making any inquiry or any effort to obtain the best information as to their circulation. They must act in good faith and seek for information as to the circulation of the newspapers, and in making the designation they must act according to the best information they can obtain. But they are not bound to resort to any particular evidence nor to give the various newspaper representatives a formal hearing. They can receive affidavits, examine books or make other inquiries satisfactory to them for the purpose of ascertaining which of the newspapers has the largest circulation within the city. If they are furnished with formal proof by the representatives of any newspaper, they should receive it and act upon it. If evidence, not open to suspicion or doubt or question, is furnished to them showing that any particular newspaper lias the largest circulation, they should receive and act upon such evidence, giving to it its proper force and effect. In other words, they should act fairly, seeking for the best information to guide them in the exercise of tlieir judicial discretion in the selection of the newspaper under the act. All sources of information are open to them as they are. open to assessors of property for taxation who are to proceed upon diligent inquiry and the best information they can obtain. (2 R. S. [7th ed.] 990, 991, 994 ; People v. Trustees of Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y. 390.) Mow, what facts have we here ? At the time the police commissioners designated the newspapers they had not been *235 furnished with any evidence by the relator that the World had a larger circulation in the city of Hew York than any other newspaper. The entire circulation may have been larger than that of any other newspaper in the whole country, and yet its circulation may not have been so large in the city of Hew York as some other newspaper published there. The offer of the relator on the 25th of October, then to show that the circulation of the World in the city of Hew York ivas larger than that of any other newspaper, came too late, as the designation had then already been made. There is absolutely nothing in this record showing that the determination of the police commissioners was erroneous, or from which we can determine that they did not exercise their jurisdiction regularly and rightfully. We are bound to take them return as true, and in it they allege that in designating the papers they selected those which, according to the best information they could obtain, had- the largest circulation in the city of Hew York; and thus they certified that they had actually and literally complied with the statute. If the return was evasive, or not sufficiently full, they could have been compelled, under section 2135 of the Code, to make a further return. They could have been required to return what action they took and what information they sought and obtained in reference to the circulation of the newspapers. But, instead of asking for a further return, the relator was content to stand upon the return as made. We are bound to take the return here as absolutely true. If it be false the relator has its remedy by an action against the police commissioners for making a false return, in which action it can recover its damages suffered in consequence thereof. (People ex rel., etc., v. Fire Commissioners, 73 N. Y. 437.) Therefore, because we cannot m this record discover any error in the proceedings or determination of the board of police commissioners, the order of the General Term should be affirmed, with costs. All concur. Order affirmed.