The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-04-15

Company learned By setephons TIA. the
hoard had determined 70 90 ahead With
out further delay and the matter was AZ
orsca carried tnso coart-
Says II Cssn~s stand
Corporation Counsel Humphrey said yes
terstag that he felt eonndeaS the restrain
Ing order couii not stand He takes the
position that the lowest bids are ia each
case entirely legal He holds that the spirit
q the charter prsy5xsun thai certified Checks
accompanying lids he for per cent. Of the
estimate ss that the cisixens and taxpayers
shall be protected axainss straw bids
Since the bidders have deposited with the
city comptroller adSssrionai checks To cover
airy shortage In the original he believes she
people 10 be fully secured against any
possibility OF loss and that good faith has
been proven By me contractors.
I'm the case OF The Pacific Bridge Conn
panr. In subdivision No. l. ne said. The
company deposited with the city compsrof-
Isr a certified check before the bids "efe
opened fnssractsng him that In case o.
any shortage IL should apply In saodiyis-
lon No there has been an omission IN
agursng on a small part Of the works. not
amounting 70 over $50 and as the con-
tractor agrees IN general 10 do al labor
aud furnish all materials fo- the work
ass syeeifed I'm each subdivision. I should he
81 the opinion that the omission was - the
eit5's advantage end the contractor GOULD
be compelled 10 perform that part Of the
work for nothing
lin subdivisions ard : the shortage in
the certified checks Is very small, and since
the opening Of bids the contractors have
covered the deficiency by deposit with the
city comptroller.
How Error Occsrred.
1T can readily Re seen where the short
age comes in As part Of the specifications
In zach subdivision. and entered al the
head Of the printed forms for estimates,
is the maximum amount which the city
would compel the contractors 10 pay for
warrants issued to pay for real estate, etc.
In No. this amounts 10 $500. in No. 2,
ST. 90. in No 3. t2,1a and in No. & 81. COZ.
II il evident that in figuring out per cent
OF their estimates 10 determine shs size
Of the certified checks Snyth. Wakefield Il
David DID not take these amounts Into con
sideraton. And in this I hold they are
right. since / consider these amounts no
part Of the specifications proper.
True. In the case 81 the Pacific Bridge
Company. on subdivision No. l. the check
falls about 500 short even without figur-
ing on the fixed sum for warrants. But as
/ said before the Pacific Bridge Company
deposited check 10 cover deficiencies with
the city comptroller before the bids were
opened ana is thereby certainly exoneraisd
fran any possible charge OF bad faith.
II have been unable 10 find any legal au-
thoriftes covering the points at issue and
so far have not had any authorities
brought TO my attention by counsel for the
plaintiff contractors. The only point have
fourd authority for is that Omission of an
innaserial item does not invalidate bid
That applies 10 the estimate In subdivision
No. p"
To BE Well Contested.
The argument before Judge Moore Mon
dag afternoon promises to be we'll contest
ed. The contractors are represented by
lawyers a. follows: Sttrrat d Goeiz. by
Samuel Pies Pacific Bridge Company. by
Donworth Il Howe. F. Mcclellan. by Bal
.nger Battle Il Ronald. SMITH. Wakefield
a. David. by John p. Hartman. Moran
Bros Company. by Preston, Carr q Gill
man.
II. C. Campbell. representing the Pacific
Bridget Company. Is confident that the COM
pany's bid on subdivision No. | VIII be ac-
cepted. Our bid Is unauest'onably the
lowest. he said yesterday. "and We have
done our best 10 come UP 10 the require
ments OF the board OF public works in ev-
cry way. ! feel no doubt whatever about
the outcome.
The result OF Mondays legal battle will
be watched with intense interest by the
people OF this city. Shauid the injunction
next lowest bidder In each subdivision VIII
be awarded the contract unless further liti-
cation should hang UP the award Indefinite