The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-03-25

a few minutes taken in routine tern
work, Judge Robinson listened to argu.
ment on the prosecutions motion fo'
change of venue, with the objections
of the defense, in the case of Edward
Mitchell Jones, indicted for murder IN
the first degree. Z. C. Peters repre-
scented the Territory, and A. G. NJ. Rob-
ertson and j. j. Dunno the defendant
The grounds of motion and objections
We're published in yesterdays Adver-
tiser.
CONTRACT ENJOINED.
Judge De Bolt rendered his decision
yesterday in the Lahainaluna buildings
contract case, granting a permanent in
junction against the awarding of the
contract by C. S. Holloway, Superin-
tendent of Public Works, to Thomas
r. Lucas, Charles Lucas and John Lu-
cas-, doing business under the firm
name of Lucas Brothers, for the sum &C
$35,516.
Herbert Kendall was plaintiff in the
case, praying for the injunction on the
ground that he had received no notice
of change in the specifications be
fore bidding for the contract. such
change being the elimination of an item
providing for the cost of a Government
inspector of the work at 81 day. He
claimed that with this item left out of
his bid the price he asked would have
been lower than that of Lucas Bros.
Notice of the change had been given to
the latter firm and all others whom the
Superintendent knew as intending bid
ders, but the complainant received no
notice and put in tender for $36,235.
But this matter of personal notice
or failure thereof, or that there was no
fraud or favoritism shown, are in my
opinion, totally immaterial to a deci-
sion of this cause Judge De Bolt
writes. Neither do l deem it of any
Importance to determine who was the
lowest bidder
ONLY ONE QUESTION.
The sole question which he deems to
be decisive of the case is whether the
there having been no public advertise
ment of the change in specifications
that made the contract a different one
from that proposed in the public notice
inviting tenders for the work. He
quotes from Sec. 10 of Act IS, Laws of
1903, requiring that every contract for
constructing public works or furnishing
material therefor, amounting to five
hundred dollars ($50O or more, shall be
awarded to the lowest bidder who shall
furnish a sufficient bond only upon pub
lie advertisement for tenders, on which
he comments:
1.-THE object of such statutory provi-
sions is, it has been said, to prevent
favoritism, corruption, extravaganza
and improvidence' in the awarding of
contracts for public works or material.
A fair competition among the bidders
is the prime object of such provisions,
and anything which tends to impair
this is illegal GO Ency. Law, I'd Ed,
1165-6) The statute is mandatory and
it has not been complied with in this
case. The conclusion is clear.
BAD PRINCIPLE DESIGNATED.
IF the Superintendent of Public
Works after such public advertisement
for tenders is at liberty to make one
change in the plans or specifications
without embarrassment, then, upon
the same principle, he may make other
changes, no matter how great, and
award a contract thereon accordingly.
This, in my opinion, is in direct con-
fiict not only with the statute but with
public policy, and cannot be recognized
upon any theory consistent with a fair
and impartial administration of public
affairs. In the matter of awarding
public contracts there should be the
fullest and most ample opportunity for
competition. Such a doctrine as con- |
tended for on behalf of respondents
would open wide the door to corruption, |
fraud and favoritism. fail to see why |
the principles which are applicable TO
the awarding of the contract in the |
first instance, and the observance of |
which principles are deemed so vital |
and essential to the validity of the con-
tract are not equally applicable and |
essential to any change resulting in an
other or different contract.
NEW CONTRACT INVOLVED.
I'm the case at bar the Superintend
ent of Public Works, in the first in
stance, under the requirements of the .
statute, duly caused public advertise
ment for tenders to be made for the
purpose of awarding "A certain contract,
according to certain plans and specifica-
tlons. 10 the lowest bidder But, in
stead of awarding the contract so adj
Vertised, he now without such adver-
tisement proposes to award another
contract In my opinion, for the rea-
sons already stated, the proposed con-
tract Is clearly Illegal and the awarding
of II, under the circumstances, would
be contrary to public policy as well as
the statute"
INJUNCTION GRANTED,
Judge DE Bolt quotes again from the
Encyclopedia, thusl Where the mu-
nieipal authorities are required 10 adj
yerlise for bids ana let contract 10
the lowest bidder they are not "a lib-