The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-08-10
AGAINST SCHOOL BOARD.
County superintendent Meredith De-
ctdes In Favor Of Metropolitan
Printing and binding Co.

County Superintendent OF Schools Mere
dith yesterday handed down decision
on the appeal OF the Metropolitan Print
Ing and Binding Company from the action
of the directors OF school district No. I,
In awarding the contract for supplying the
district with stationery to the Lowman q
Hanford Stationery and Printing Com
pany. holding In the appellants favor.
The bids for the school supplies men,
TONED were opened by the school board
of district No, !, which embraces Seattle,
on July 10. Three companies put In bids
for the contract The bid OF Lowman II
IIanford was fs,0si IS; Metropolitan Print
ing and Binding Company. $500 o., and
the Denny-Coryell Company, 81, s22 %. The
board accepted the Lowman a Hnnfnrd
bid The Metropolitan company filed an
appeal from the decision on the ground
that their bid was lower.
Superintendent Meredith. In his opinion.
FIRST deals with his Jurisdiction over dis
pntes OF this kind. and then says:
II have TO say that the letter OF the
law makes Il the duty OF the county
superintendent. to hear and decide an APP
peal whenever any person is aggrieved
by action or order OF the board OF d.
rectors The whole tenor Of the law IL
that the schools and boards IN cities OF
1000 and under are under the turfaiictlon
OF the county superintendent and bear the
same relation TO this Office that all other
district boards and schools do. except In
sofar as the statutes specially relating 10
city schools expressly modify that rela-
ton.
fhtsndent 20 make such decision as shall
be Just and equitable I am driven to the
alternative Of either affirming the action
Of the board or pointing on, the error
and making a different award. The COM
fention OF the boards counsel that he
board had "A right 10 decide which was
lowest and best II not 20 be denied. IN The
board was convinced that the lowest hid
dcrs would not or could not perform the
service promised ia their hid. then II wont,
be clearly the boards duty 10 reject that
"rut the fact that the board had hat
satisfactory dealings with one firm would
not warrant them IN giving the contract
70 that trim At q higher figure than the
same service could Be obtained from an
other party. The appellants testify that
they were and are ready 20 fuifn fhs
terms ~ ;heir BID and that they are wifi
INK 70 give a satisfactory bond 10 serure
the district against ioss. aeiav ar annmv.
ance. The ofer 81 one firm 70 take hack
any surplus or furnish any additional
siaerea BY the board unles. said aTer vas
part n the bid or the other htdAfr had
refused 20 make iikf terms No nvgdrrre
l. offered 90 show that said aner vav psrt
given an opportunity to oyer - -sf,,*s
like terms. on tho contrary, the femsg
rnony ~ a member % the h9ara .hna.s
that tha award Was made tn the absence
~ Ell bidders
The couHseYs contention that The hoard
was not restricted 70 she lowest rssnsrsf
bse bid ~ Ns award, u - contrary IN my
Judgment t0 the evident latent az fhe
law and ~ many notable decisions ~ "a
cent date. that a. not intend 10 sisetfss
&. further than 20 saw that such carritg
sion would make ths whole one ~afior, -
advertising for h8s a nuiiitY ard a fare
7 am forced 20 the conclusion 81 the 80
sons set forth has the board 7rres IN
their award ans hereby snsfSlr ~
contention - thu appellants ara srrart
their petition by awarding "a them ths
contract IN question"
This - the irsf case % thiE kind which
the county stinerintendent has been raitas
upon 20 decide and establishes a prece-
dent.