The San Francisco call., 1898-01-31
E. L. COLNON.

ence on which the application for in- junction is based. The specifications un- der which proposals for bids were invit- ed come from the hand of Howard C.. Holmes. chief engineer for the board. under the title: Specifications for the treatment or manufacture of such piles as the Board of State Harbor Commis- sioners may order for use on the water front of the city and county of San Francisco. for a period of one year; also for the treatment of piles for use in the repair of Green-street wharf '' With the specifications was a full and accurate description of the work to be performed, the material to be used and when to be used. Four methods of treating piles were also described in detail. under classifications A." B." "C" and "D." Proposals were adver- tised to be opened by the commission at 2:30 o'clock p. m. November A. 1897. It was required that bidders should specify in their proposals for each Of the methods described, the price per foot of pile to be treated or built, in- cluding the hauling of piles out of water, barking, cutting to length and delivering into water. The bids were opened on the day advertised, but no action was taken on them until Decem- ber 16. The Paraffine Company was the lowest bidder according to each and all the methods. The other bidders were the Teredo Proof Pile Company. H. R. Rood & Go and the San Fran cisco Timber Preserving Company
 On the last date mentioned the Par affine Paint Company demanded that they be awarded the contract on the ground that they were the lowest bid ders and stood prepared to give suffi- cient sureties for the performance of the contract. Instead of doing so the commission rejected all the bids and decided to readvertise for bids again under a new set of specifications This course they supported with the follow ing opinion received from their attor- ney:
 ',The proposals under the advertise ment as published, provided that the bids should be received and opened No vember 24 at 2:30 o'clock. Prior to the hour appointed an injunction was served, under the seal of the Superior Court (This was the Healy injunc- tion). It was dissolved and the action dismissed December TO- The bids were not opened on that day; nor until Tues day, December IA
 As an unnecessary question was thus presented as to the validity of any con- tract made on bids opened as stated above the attorney recommended a re- advertisement, under new specifications changed in several important particu- lars.'
 Accordingly, this was done, and here at this point the Paraffine Paint Com- pany charges that the remodeled spe- cifications were intended to exclude competitors, and favored the process for which the San Francisco Timber Preserving Company holds the patents. The Paraffine Company arraigns the board in the following language:
 That the prices named in said bids of said Paraffine Company were not too high, and were not in the opinion of said board too high, and that the prices named fin said bids of said Paraffine Company are lower than any prices for which similar work has heretofore been done, and are as low as any prices at which said work can De done according to said specified tionS.
 That affiant is informed and believes and upon his information and belief al leges that the only reason why the said board have refused and do re- fuse to award said contract to the said Paraffine Paint Company is that they desire, purpose and intend to wrongfuily and unlawfully and in viola ton of their duty, award the contract for treating the piles to be used in the repair of said Green-street wharf to the said San Francisco Timber Preserving Company and to give the same company the work