The San Francisco call., 1898-04-24

age, wharfage, tolls. rents and cranage, and not from general taxes. Such in come. amounts to the sum of $5O.OOO or s60,OOO each month, that is to say, the income of the board is between $500 900 and 00O per annum. This vast sum is wholly expended in each year.
 What Might Be.
 Properly husbanded 1t probably is ade- quate to bring about a result suggested by counsel in argument, that is to say, to provide for the construction of all water front improvements in permanent form. etc, so that the Legislature, within comparatively short term of years, might declare San Francisco a free port" like Liverpool. No doubt that Is legislative intendment, though somewhat dimly expressed. The language (Sec. 2524, Political Code), gives the Mayor of San Francisco and the commissioners power to modify rates of dockage and wharf age until such and such revenue shall be produced, and then provides that when such modification has been made the collection of tolls must be abolished and the toll collectors discharged No great powers of prophecy are required to forecast the effect of such a declaration upon the industries of California and the
 
 On the l6th of November, 1897, the San Francisco Board of State Harbor Com mtssioners determined that it was neces- sary to have SIT piles treated for repairs of Green-street wharf; and further deter mined that 1t was necessary to have a supply of piles treated for use on the water front in other work during the then ensuing year, and specifications were prepared accordingly and published in- viting competitive bidding, all as required by law. Several bids came in, pursuant fn hn not f1,.O Trr rl,1c month the board met to consider them, but having been restrained by an order of court from opening the bids the board by mesne recesses, continued the matter until the 14th day of December, when the injunction was removed and the bids opened
 The Lowest Bid
 The bids were in form and were &C., companied by certified checks. as re- quired by law. The bid of the Paraffine Paint Company was the lowest bid upon all of the methods named, and 1t was not alone that, but it was the lowest price for which the work could be done AS dence. The board discussed the bids without acting upon them and took a recess in the matter until the day follow ing. Upon the day following the board further discussed the bids without acting upon them, and took another recess in the matter until the following day-the 16th. On that day MT. Stratton, the spe- cial counsel, who had been requested to advise the board with respect to the bids, sent in a written opinion wherein he advised the board that it had lost Jurisdiction by not opening the bids on the day named in the advertised notice. He further advised that the Specificati tions be changed. Afterward, on the same day the board rejected all of the bids. With respect to that action the Commission CTS testified that the bids were rejected because of the advice of the special coun- sel-the action of the board practically being that of two of the Commissioners the third, whose term was about to ex- pire and who was in the political minor ity, concurring as a matter of form in the action of his associates.
 As to Special Counsel.
 The action of the board in employing special counsel and in rejecting the bids, and the action of the special counsel were both dwelt upon at length in evidence and in argument First, it was said by coun- sel for plaintiff that the board had no the public expense. With respect to that matter section 2521 of the Political Code provides that the board shall appoint an attorney who shall hold his office for the term of four years, and section 2552 pro- vides that he shall receive from the State a salary of s2Oo per month (s24Oo per an "the Attorney General of the State must give such lega. advice and render such legal services as may from time to time in connection with their duties without further compensation" These provisions lative intention to give the Commission CTS a capable attorney of their own choice at an adequate salary Git being re- membered that the service is not exclu- sive). and to further give them the bene- fit of the Attorney Generals advice when required. l think the maxim, expressio unius est eXclusio alteriuS, is applicable The provisions that the board shall have its own attorney (and at all of the times mentioned the board has had very ca he that Ies the Gen q eral shall give advice when required. which it is provided shall. be without dicate legislative intention to limit the 1 public expenditure for legal services in that behalf to the sum of S24O0 per an- mum. It follows that the Commissioners have no right to employ special counsel.
 MT. Stratton's Affiliations.
 with the board and certain parties who were dealing with the board, feel bound to say that 1 cannot follow the plaintiff s | touching the disposition of his legal serv- | ices to the. board and certain other par ties l think the mistake was an honest 1 to the board on the day the bids were re- l jected. while do not agree that it was sound, I entertain no doubt that 1t was l sincerely given. l do not think it neces- sary to say anything further upon the subject.
 The good faith of the members of the board In rejecting the bids is quite a different matter.
 Tn referring to the members of the | board, I feel that in justice to all 1t should be said that both evidence and argument was aimed particularly at the 1 president, or as he was sometimes called