The San Francisco call., 1898-04-27
ANXIOUS FOR
 A REVERSAL Judge Belcher Not in Favor With the Har- Dor Commission. Special Counsel Engaged to Carry His Decision to the
 Supreme Court. Resolutions Passed and From All Appearances the Board Is in
 Earnest.
At a meeting of the State Board of

At a meeting of the State Board of
 Harbor Commissioners yesterday after
 noon it was resolved that the decision of Judge Belcher against the board should be appealed and special counsel retained in behalf of the board It was
 resolved that counsel for the defend ants in the two cases of Irving vs. the board and the case of the Paraffine Company vs. the same parties, now
 pending in the Superior Court, be au- thorized and directed to forthwith take all necessary steps and proceedings for new trials and appeals on behalf of the board
 The Commissioners have expressed their determination to fight the decision to the bitter end. MT. Herrold asked
 that the move be first referred to the attorney of the board and the Attorney General, for the purpose of discovering how long the action of the board would
 be held by the appeal, but Special Counsel F. S. Stratton was of the opin- ion that the appeal should be made and victory for the board would certainly follow. Other routine business was looked into by the board, but it was evident that the meeting involved prin- cipally the action of Judge Belcher in his recent decision.
 After the decision by the board to ap- peal the case to the higher courts, the letter written by Attorney Stratton was placed on record. The letter or appeal follows:
 Honorable Board of State Harbor Com missioners, 10 California street City Gentlemen: The two suits of Irving VS.
 Board of State Harbor Commissioners. r n q int Nn1
 have been decided. as you know, in favor
 of the plaintiff. While the decisions are, as they ought to be, received as express ing the law as viewed by the trial court nevertheless advise that appeals be
 forthwith taken to the Supreme Court And while further the opinion ren- spect and as of weight, 1 still further ex- press the belief that the appeals must in-
 eyltably be successful. While your right there can be no doubt of the proper ex-
 ercise of your power in this instance, for the reason that the Attorney General has, employment as such in this case.
 Regarding this same matter. for ser wees, rendered during the trial just had the matter of the law is more authorita- 1 lively determined. Since, however I have never acted in any case as special coun- quested by MT. Ford, your regular at
 torney, and since one Attorney General | has already filed a written opinion con- cedlng your right to employ special coun- sel, and since you have verbally reported to me the opinion of the present Attor-
 ney General conceding to you the same rlght, and since further this power to so employ special counsel is, in my opinion. given to the Harbor Commissioners ex-
 pressly by the act of March 13. 1885, I
 would suggest and advise that the whole matter or the right of special counsel to act be referred to your own attorney for his opinion.
 In the opinion just rendered bv Judge
 Belcher l feel that it is my duty to state that ne has in all probability uncon- sclously done me an injustice regard
 ing the advice which I gave you relative to the rejection of bids. The opinion in question states that I advised the board
 that they had no authority to open the not named in the advertisement. He
 holds that such an opinion is not sound law.
 I think that Judge Belcher. when his attention is called to the matter, will at once recall that I never have given any
 such advice. This is the more readily
 sn9Wn sni,1;d, oy reason of the fact that my writing, and is on file in your office, and was introduced as an exhibit in the trial
 of these cases. MT. Holmes testified that before the bids in question were opened. and before it was known at all that the plaintiff was the lowest bidder, or. in
 fact, that any bid had been put in by the ing method. I stated to him that it would be advisable for the board to return all
 bids unopened, and in this way avoid complication.
 After the bids had been opened, and when I was appealed to for my views. I reiterated my former opinion that. since
 the right of the board 70 open bids on
 would probably be raised. and since by
 opening bids on such a day the board
 might be involved in litigation which
 would delay the work for from one to
 three years, the better plan would
 be for the board to avoid all questions, and by readvertising for ten days make
 their position in law secure. This cer- tainly was merely proceeding with cau- tion, and there was no declaration on my
 part at any time as to whether the board had or had not authority to open the bids Very respectfully, F. S. STRATTON uaunav Ar errrno