The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-01-12
Honolulu. Dec. 80. 1904.

Honolulu, Dec. 80 1904.
Mr.. A. n. Campbell, City:
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter OF
December 22d, requesting answers to
certain questions relating to the In
sane Asylum contract and your liabili-
ties Hereunder as surety on the bond
| of the contractor if it proceeds with
the work I would say that 1 have care
fully examined all of the documents
and statements submitted to me and
taken a number of additional state
ments bearing upon the subject, and
have reached the following conclusions,
viz:
Reply to questions 1 and 2: [ am of
| opinion that the clause requiring the
concrete blocks to be made under a
pressure of 400 pounds to the square
inch is so vitalIy an integral part of
the contract that it cannot be legally
ignored or waived, either with or
without the consent of the Superin-
! tendent of Public Works.
If such course were attempted with
cut the consent of the government, the
superintendent of Public Works could
refuse to pay under the contract. If
the superintendent consented, it would
be the duty of the auditor to refuse
payment, and if he did not do so, any
taxpayer could, in my opinion, enjoin
payments on the contract.
The reason for this opinion is that
the estimate of cost of hand-tamping
apparatus is $500. The lowest estimate
Of cost of a power press is for the So
called 'Pinkham' machine, which is
valued at $1,000.
The Of ha
ratus must be included in the cost of
The building.
In the case of the "Pinkham'' ma
chine this is specifically so. as the only
proposition to the contractor is that it
shall pay 1000 with which the ma
chine shall be built, and for the use
Of it, and when the asylum is complet- |
ed the machine shall revert to the in
ventor, or whoever the owner may be. ,
1t is therefore manifest that the
building viii cost at least $4,000 more
# built of blocks made under pressure
than if made with blocks made in the
ordinary way.
The taxpayers are entitled to this
saving and not the contractor.
The law does not permit the advertis-
ng of bids on one basis, and the car
'ying out of the contract on a radical I
Y different one. This would prevent
air competition, which is required by :
he general law, as we'll as by Ha-
vaiian statute.
The recent supreme court decision in
he Brewer wharf case is conclusive on
his point. 1t says:
The object of all such statutory pro-
-isions is to prevent favoritism, cor b
upton. extrava gance and IMPROVE (
ence in the awarding of all public 7
If the contractor was permitted to c
ynore the pressure clause it would be
ank favoritism, and unfair to other a
ontractors who based their bids on a
ne cost of pressure blocks, or who h
light have been prevented from bid L
ing by the presence of the pressure b
ause. b
AS practical fact, the statement is
lade by at least five responsible con- f
actors that the pressure clause pre- II
anted them from bidding, and one of Ct
lem has assured me that he will begin 4
junction proceedings if the American a
hawaiian Company attempts to con- 9
ruct the building with Handicapped CT
ocks. Ii
If it is impo ssible to carry out the m
-essure clause. the contract is void. ii
I'd the only course open is for the So
1vernment to re-advertise the con- fe
act, emitting the pressure clause. n;
Answer to question 2: If II is phys
ally impossible to make the blocks CO
qutred by the contract. the contrac- IT
T and it bondsmen cannot be re-
Tired to do impossibilities, and would IT
absolved from going on with the eH
ntract. Is
If it is impossible except by means &C
a machine which has never been
Tilt, and which exists only in the fl
ain OF its inventor. and concerning OF
lich there is still a wen-founded W
ubt as TO whether ii VII do the work st
not. I am Of the opinion that the nc