The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-11-28
ONTRACTS LET
BEFORE RECEIPT
OF REQU|S|T|0N
Guard Blouse Awards
Discussed.
ATTORNEY GENERALS VIEWS
A NEW POINT RAISED AS TO
THE BOARD. g.
While Two Members May Execute a
Contract Unanimity Is Con-
sidered More De-
sirable.
ATTORNEY GENERALS VIEWS
A NEW POINT RAISED as TO
THE BOARD.

Attorney General Ford has rendered the
opinion referred to in Sundays Call as
to the power Of the uniform board of the
National Guard OF California to award
contracts. The opinion was forwarded to
the Adjutant Generals Office IN Sacra-
mento last Saturday afternoon.
The conclusions OF the Attorney Gen
eral are that the power of the board Is
set forth in section 2027 Of the Political
Code. wherein II is provided among other
things that 1.-The service uniform and
equipments shall be furnished. as afore-
said. by board which is hereby provided.
TO consist OF three commissioned officers,
TO be appointed by the commander-in-
chief" This board is directed ito pur-
chase the cloth. arrange for its cutting
and also for It's making, when required
by the commander of any organization.
and also TO purchase equipments" The
same section further provides that 1.-THE
bills of said board shall be audited. al
lowed and paid as are other military de-
mands."
With reference to the above the fol-
lowing questions were submitted TO the
Attorney General:
First-What is the standing Of tho
board as 10 bidders whose bids have
been accepted for uniforms and which
bids were submitted in response 10
advertisements for and on behalf OF
the board?
the board by It's president and its re-
corder or the entire board?
In response TO the first question, the
Attorney General holds that the accept
ance by the board Of the bid of a bidder
In response to public notice soliciting
such bids and the acceptance of such bid
by. the board and the notification OF the
bidder OF such acceptance. completed and
was binding upon the board subject 70
the provisions above referred TO with ref
erence TO the auditing, allowance and pay
Board Of Military Auditors.
In response TO the second question, the
Attorney General cited section Is of the
Political Code, which reads as follows:
Words giving a joint authority TO
three or more public officers, or other
persons, are construed as giving such
authority 10 majority OF them, un-
less II is otherwise expressed in the
act giving the authority.
After thus quoting from the law. the
Attorney General held that in a proper
case all contracts for or on behalf OF said
board should be signed by every member
OF the board, although a majority thereof
In view of this II is probable that the
board, or more properly the majority
Giesting-will sign the two contracts for
blouses, awarded TO the Pettibone Com
pany and to Mandel. Pursch & Co., the
latter receiving by the " vote Of these two
blouse than Pettibone & Co.. or in all, on
the amount of the contract, the sum OF
$40.
The law quoted by the Attorney Gen.
eral is that OF 1895. and from its reading
IL is clear that this board is authorized
and directed 10 purchase the cloth, ar
range for its cutting and also for its MAX
ing when required by the commander OF
any organization" Now a new question
arises, and that Is. Did not the uniform
board In letting the contracts, not only for
the blouses, but for the caps, trousers
and overcoats, exceed its authority? For
IL is a fact that no commanding Officer of
any OF the organizations. say the Second
Brigade, for instance, has made any re-
QUESTION for uniforms. The First Regi-
ment certainly did not. for II was not a
part of the National Guard when the con-
tracts were let. and is not yet, as the
muster rolls have not as yet been for
warded TO superior headquarters. II any
one on behalf OF the Fifth Regiment has
filed a requisition, no one in authority
knows Of II. Consequently the board of
It's own volition has let contracts for more
than $4,000 without any requisition hav-
ing been made for the same