The San Francisco call., 1898-01-31
Dundon and Slade Will Have to Show Their
 Books.
Developments Promised in the Paraffine Paint Com
 pany's Case.
PECULIAR TRANSACTIONS,
Alleged Collision and Fraud in Awarding Contract for Pres
 ervation of Harbor Piles.

Possibly the greater part of the week will be taken up in Judge Belchers court by a case which promises sensa- non, F. S. Chadbourne and P. J. liar . ney. constituting the State Harbor Commission, are defendants in the ac- tion, which was brought by Samuel c. Irving on behalf of the Paraffine Paint Company, to restrain the board from opening bids and awarding the con- tract for the treatment of piling to be used in the Green-street wharf The contest involves further the letting of contracts for similar treatment or manufacture of piling for the ensuing year.
 Like most legal controversies arising over questions of contract this one is complicated. Its most salient feature is the charge of fraud and collusion directed against the Harbor Commits sion, which is accused of having an especial and fostering interest in what is known as the San Francisco Timber Preserving Company. to the prejudice and detriment of competitors.
 Incidentally, it will be attempted in the judicial inquiry to demonstrate that the San Francisco Timber Pre- serving Company is only one of several supply concerns having a common ownership which are favored by the commission. in disregard of the pub lie interests. The moving spirits in these syndicates are alleged to be P. F. Dundon and s. E. Slade They are pointed out as the controlling officers of the San Francisco Timber Preserv- ing Company. the s. F. Slade Lumber Company. the P. F. Dundon Lumber Company and the P F. Dundon Iron Works. MT. Dundon Is also interested in the firm of Darby Laydon & Go. These firms or organizations in the an- nual sum total supply the commission with great quantities of materials, raw and manufactured. and in many of their transactions collision is al- legged.
 An investigation of the records dis closes the fact that neither of the so- YSslled companies has filed articles of kncorporation.
 In the matter of the Paraff1ne Com pany, whose attorneys may keep the Harbor Commissioners and the favored salesmen on the gridiron dur ing the week, the board set up a gen. eral denial to each and every allega- ton preferred. It is privately con- tended in their behalf that the litiga- ton Is merely one of a number of eases that have occurred between the contractor doing business with the board. and that the hands of the Com missioners are in reality clean.
 Antecedent to the present legal on- slaught which the Paraffine Paint Com pany seems determined to push to ju- dicial settlement. two actions bearing on the duty and powers of the board in the matter of letting contracts had been undertaken. The most important of these was with reference to the Slade Lumber Company contract, by which 1t was undertaken to furnish the commission with lumber for a year at the lowest market price, the supply to begin with the minimum price named in the lowest competing bid, namely, $7 40 per thousand. After the Slade company had furnished lumber for a short period at this price their bills for thousands of dollars at prices ranging from $9 to SIS per thousand were ap- proved by the purchasing agent of the commission and allowed. It was held that this action was fraudulent and colluSiVe, but an examination of the records shows that the board were pru- dent enough to have secured legal in- depreciation of the terms of the Slade contract which sustained them in the course they pursued.
 The fight over the piling contract has two phases. It had been the custom of the board for a long time to purchase piles on informal bids, and according to %eir own discretion. On the other hand. they had transacted with the San Francisco Timber Preserving Company during the last year more than $50000 worth of business, without having re- sorted to advertisements for contracts in the prescribed form, with specified tions The work done consisted of treating the piles for protection against the teredo and lemovia, under patents owned exclusively by that company. For this patented preservative the com- mission expressed decided preference, pretending to justify their choice with scs-ntif1c reasons, and on the ground