Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-04
UNIVERSITY WINS
INJUNCTION SUIT
Letting Of Contract to R'ney OF
Chicago Held to Be Proper
DECISION BY JUDGE HlLEs.
Federated Trades Not satished -
An Appeal Way Yet be
Taken.

No sooner had the attorneys In the
University case concluded their argu-
ments before Judge Hiles today when
his honor announced his decision, find
ing the issues In favor Of the defendant
board Of regents
Contractors Thomas Morris, Alfred
Brown and others, a couple Of months
ago brought suit against the regents
Of the University to enioin the letting
Of the contract for the construction Of
the physical wing OF the new University
building to w. II. Roney, Of Chicago,
on the ground that he was not the
lowest responsible bidder.
Defendants contended that Roney was
the lowest aggregate bidder, but plain
uns insisted that the call for bids speci-
fed that contracts should be let sep
arately 10 the lowest bidders ON the
three wings Of the University building.
The case has been before the court
In one form or another for some time
past, and everybody interested heaved
a sigh Of relief when Judge Hlles an
nounced his decision today The courts
decision is herewith given in full;
THE DECISION.
ION the demurrer TO the original COM
plant In this suit | decided that II did
not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause OF action, because no fraud
either actual or constructive, was
charged against the board Of regents
In the transactions whereby they made
the award 10 Mr. Roney OF the con-
tracts mentioned In the complaint.
THE original complaint sought the
aid OF this court TO determine and adj
Judge that the board OF regents had
not exercised the hest discretion, or
sound discretion In thus awarding these
contracts, and TO enjoin them and Ron
ey from further proceeding to carry out
such contracts.
This | decided could not be lawfully
done by the courts. That to do so
would be usurplng a jurisdiction which
| the statute had conferred on the board
Of regents alone.
STANDS BY FORMER RULING.
IL can now see no reason for de-
| parting from that ruling but there Is
every reason for adhering to II. The
! courts Of this country ought always to
preserve and safeguard every power
and jurisdiction. which the law confers
| on them. They ought on the other
hand to be as careful 10 not exceed their
lawful authority, and not encroach In
any manner on the powers and func-
tons OF coordinate branches OF the
| government BY section 2069 OF the
revised statutes Of Utah the Legisla-
ture has conferred on the board Of reg
ents the power to make these contracts.
SO long as the regents act within the
discretion which the statute gives them
the court cannot, nor can any other
authority In the State lawfully Inter-
fere with their action.
"Of course II they should act fraudu-
lently. or should abuse their discretion
In such wise as that fraud must be
necessarily implied from their conduct
the courts Will at the suit Of proper
parties, intervene to prevent fraud.
QUESTION FOR DECISION.
1T was in this view Of the law, that
the plaintiffs filed their amended COM
plant, In which the board is charged
with fraud In the making OF this award
to Mr. Roney. The question now for de-
cslon ~, whether any fraud has been
shown by the evidence. II has been as
serted that the notice 10 bidders and the
accompanying specifications which were
published In the newspapers. and In
the office OF Mr.. Kletting, the architect
and which have been put in evidence
were so ambiguous In language and
f0lm as 10 prevent fair competition
among the bidders, and that this
amounted TO at least constructive
fraud, l find that the notice and spe-
cihcatlons when read separately, or read
together, are not obnoxious Il
fly be understood by any person
OF ordinary skin and understanding In
the building craft. Complaint Is made
that the board acted frauduently in
adopting as standard by which tC
determine the lowest responsible bid
der on three Of the buildings named In
the notice, viz: the physical building
the library building and the normal
building. The lowest bidder on the
aGgrC gate price OF the three buildings
and not the lowest responsible bidder
on the three buildings separately. The
evidence shows, and the fact is, and
so find that the board In this case de-
clded ON fair consideration and In good
faith that Mr.. Roney was the lowest
responsible bidder on each OF the three
buildings separately. mat is TO say on
the physical building, on the library
building and on the normal building
Whilst the evidence shows that Grund
for & Atkinson were several hundred
dollars lower In price In their bid on tn,
physical building than was Roney, anC
whilst they We're in one sense RESPONSE
Bile bidders they were not OF that de
gree OF responsibility which the judg
ment and discretion Of the board de
manied, and IL appears that ROney
was Of the required responsibility, ans
they therefore awarded the contracts
TO MIN.
HOW CONTRACTS WE'RE LET,
"Mr Cutler, Mr.. Van Colt and othe
members OF the board testified In sub
stance that tie elements which the,
considered In determining the rule o
lowest responsible bidder We're: First
the price bid on the work. Second fl
| nancil ability 10 carry out the con
tract. Third. the ability TO oontrc
the necessary labor. Fourth, the homo
and fair dealing OF the bidder, Fifth
ability 10 do good work and expedition
In doing 1t.
These, II seems to me, are Just an
reasonable and sagacious standards b.
which to determine who is the loves
responsible bidder There is not {
my judgment, the slightest arbitrarl
ness In them. There were not sue
differences In the amount Of the bid o
Grundfor and Atkinson. and that o
Roney as 20 necessarily imply fraud
or bad faith, In awarding the contract
to the latter.
Mr.. KLETTING ENUMERATED.
"The evidence shows further that n
favoutsm was shown Roney by IN
board, nor by any member Of Il, 1
the transactions complained o. / fin
further that the charges made In IN