The San Francisco call., 1898-01-31

that the treatment had been demon- strated to be superior; or. rather be- cause it had passed the experimental stage.
 Whether the board had all this time transgressed the law is a question re- maining for the court to decide. The law provides that when the board de- termines "a new wharf shall be erected, or any other necessary improvement constructed, or repairs made or material obtained. the cost of which shall exceed $3000, they shall advertise for sealed proposals for a period of not less than ten days"
 The fun was begun by the Pacific Pine Lumber Company protesting Company for lumber furnished at any other or greater rate than S7 70 per thousand, delivered, which was the minimum price in the lowest competi- tive bid accepted as the opening price by the terms of the Slade bid. The matter was referred to Attorney Ford, who held in the opinion he submitted that "the proposal of the Slade Company, as accepted by the board, contemplated that the sales of lumber to be made in pursuance thereof. were to be governed by the ruling market prices at the time such sales were made" Expert testi- mony was taken as to the ruling prices filio IllS MI OI ll1G COHlpdly was dD- proved. The Pacific Pine Company protesting further the board adopted a resolution that "the purchasing agent be instructed to purchase lumber in the open market where he can get it cheap est, provided the price does not exceed $I 70 per thousand
 The board then decided to follow the letter of the law in providing for the next years supply of piles, and on October ,, 1897, by resolution instructed the secretary to advertise for proposals for furnishing piles for urgent repairs on the water front for one year, the piles to be delivered as required for treatment at any point or points on the bay of San Francisco the board might designate.
 The bids were opened October 25, 1897. The bidders were the Pacific Pine Lum- Der Company; Darby Laydon & Co.,. and Healy, Tibbets & Co. The lowest price named in the three bids, Chair man Colnon says, was higher than what the board had been paying under the plan of accepting bids for tenn porary pile supplies informally. Healy Tibbets & Go. were the lowest bidders. MT. Chadbourne moved that their bid be accepted, but his motion found no second MT. Harney then moved to reject all bids on the ground that they were too high and readvertise for new proposals. His motion prevailed.
 On November II, when the new bids were opened, Healy. Tibbets & Go. fell out of the competition. The bidders were the Pacific Pine Lumber Company and Darby Laydon & Go. Their pro- posals were precisely the same as on the previous occasion. when all the bids were rejected as excessive, and al- though Darby Laydon & Co. were higher than Healy, Tibbets & Co. when the first bids were opened, they Iad o+ signed for year. The boards defense for this action is that they had to have the piles, nd ha1 to accept the best bid they could get out of the combina- tion. This transaction is severely criti- cized as irregular.
 Meanwhile MT. Healy got out writ of prohibition against the board letting the contract for the treatment and manufacture of piles to be used during the next year. December fl, Chairman Colnon announced that the Healy in- junction proceedings had been dis missed, and the board .syas now pre- pared to open bids for Preserving the piles.
 Here comes in the cause of the in- junction action of the Para1fine Paint Company n )w pending.
 Before go ing into the details it may be well to review the position of the board. They seem to have assumed that in dealing with the patented treatment for piles controlled by the San Francisco Lumber Preserving Company, for which they admitted a decided preference, they should not have made their engagements with that company a matter of competition, lest they invite collision in the bidding So. before they agreed to advertise for proposals, they requested an opinion on the subject from their attorney. He said that the authority of public boards to advertise for bids for patented ar ticles, under statutory provisions sim liar to the one which has been quoted. respecting the minimum of S3000 ex- penditure, has been considered in many States of the Unicn with opposing con- clusions. He was very much inclined to believe that could the question be presented properly to the Superior Court, California would take its place with New York, Michigan and Mis- souri in upholding the right of public boards to advertise for bids. notwith- standing the article or process in ques- tion be patented. After careful con- sideration of the entire matter, he was of the opinion that the board would have the right to consider the respect i've merits of the several processes, and to award the contract to the bidder whose process and price, considered to- gether. were most advantageous to the State.
 'The law" he adds, certainly does not contemplate that contracts for the preserving of piles shall be let to the lowest bidder, regardless of the merits of the process such bidder intends to employ. On the other hand, the law does contemplate that such contracts shall be the result of competition ef- fected through the medium of competi- tive bids."
 It will be observed that if Attorney Ford's opinion is sound the board should provide for this pile preserving work through bids, though it is option al whether they accept the highest, lowest or medium bid.
 The complaint of the Paraffine Paint ", fa1zr Ia