The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-01-13

expensive factory plant ana erect u IN
Honolulu, with which 10 carry out this
coatraf
, finally answered By the court. Ny
opinion II. however. that the court
would take the surrounding circuil-
stances into confederation. and would
not compel the contractor to by and
erect an expensive concrete factory for
the purpose OF making blocks for this
one job.
Reply tn questions 4 and 8: An nu-
thoritative answer TO this question in
wolves expert knowledge whi,h | do
not possess. The statements OF a num-
DER of responsible and expert contrec-
tors have therefore been oJtained end
with some iiff .rrnca In detail they
unanirnouslv support the claim OF the
American Hawaiian Company. that the
speciicatr ia Of the Insan. Asylum
contract are unfairly drawn. with Ep-
parent intent to shut out competition
and to favor the Concrete Construction
Company.
The names of the contractors MAX
ing these statements are John Ouder-
kirk, John Lucas, Fred Harrison, L.
NJ. Whitehouse and John Walker.
submit their detailed statements here
with.
The charge is also supported by Mr..
Amweg and Mr.. Gilman, the manager
and president of the American-Ha-
waiian Company, who also state that
Mr.. Beardslee. the government archi-
tect for the asylum building admitted
to them that the specifications were
drawn with intention to favor the Con-
crete Construction Company. and fur
ther offered to furnish the Pinkham
machine for their use for $1,000. the
machine to be his when the job was
letter, admitted to be in Beardslee's
handwriting. addressed to himself. to
be copied and sent to him by the con-
tractor, making this $1,000 proposition.
Further confederation exists in many
admissions and surrounding circum-
stances.
Without expressing any opinion to
the correctness of the charge, advise
you that the evidence is so strong In
support of the unfair and collusive
character of the specifications and the
circumstances surrounding them, thai
II Is unsafe for the contractor to pro.
coed with the contract under any cir
cumstances, unless there Is first OBJ
tanned a judicial decision that thu
charge is untrue, for If ii is true tn,
contract Is illegal and either the gov
eminent or any taxpayer can enjoii
Hereunder.
! The Brewer wharf case is again de
cisive upon this point, where it says
"A fair competition among the bid
ders is the prime object of such statu
I tory provisions requiring publi
works to be built on public tender)
and anything which tends to impair
this is Illegal"
| Genuine competition can only result
when parties are bidding against eacl
other for precisely the same thing or
precisely the same footing"
THE fact that the business is in sucf
shape that divergent bids might bt
made, whether actually made or not
should he controlling in considering the
validity of the transaction"
Answer TO question 6: If the con
tractor is stopped from going on will
the contract on the ground that thu
contract is Illegal, l know of no lega
remedy for work and material expend
ed. Its only basis of claim against thu
government is the contract. If thu
contract is illegal it is as though i
did not exist. There is no appropria
ton from which payment could b,
made. My opinion is that its only rem
edy would be to appeal to the Legis
lature for relief.
/ Answer to question Z: 1 advise YOU
at once to notify the contractor tina
you are unwilling that it should pro
coed with the contract, on the ground!
herein set forth, and request that it no
tify the government that it is unable
to lawfully proceed with the contract
giving the reasons why.
If the contractor does not comply will
your request, 1 would suggest that you
protest to the government against its
allowing the contractor to proceed, or
the ground that it is against the pub
: lie interest as well as yours individ.
TALLY.
/ 1t will be time enough to conside
| what to do next Il neither of thes