New-York tribune., 1905-01-26
CANAL BIDS LEGAL.
MAYER GIVES OPINION.
Attorney General Says State Mdy
.4zcard Contracts.
rpr rElEGRAPH TO THE TRIpUNE-l


Ata,an,, Ian. o5-Attorney General Mayer to-
night advised y y. Y. Franchot superintendent
OF Public Works, that the bids received ID De-
cen,ber FOR six sections Of the proposed ne"
barge canal are legal. The bids submitted were
for both lump sums and for nemized estimates
and in view Of threatened legal action oy 'he
opponents of The law authorizing the building
oe the canal Mr. Franehot asked FOR advice
with reference 10 the form OF the bids in his
:efiy The Attorney General said;
] am Of the opinion that you have The author
have heea ma0c 10 tie person. frm or corpora
tion that has offered 10 DO ana perform the
same al the lowest price, and that rs between
proposals based different methods OF osti-
mating The cost you must determine I'm your
Judgment which proposal offers the lowest price,
with the authority reserved 10 you. at al times.
80 reject an the bids and readvertise and award
the contract i'm the manner in the statute pro-
Nioeo, whenever. IN your judgment 9ne l"'et-
ests OF the State viii be enhanced thereby
Two propositions We're submitted to the At
torney General:
First-Whether the Department Of Public
Works IN inviting and receiving itemized and
hump sum proposals. has proceeded according
10 law, or whether such action was contrary 10
Section 1872 of the General Canal law
Seoond-Whether the provisions OF the Barge
Canal act, which require the State Engineer and
the Superintendent of Public Works TO proceed
with the improvement with in three months
after the bonds are issued, make the steps
taken 10 date illegal or irregular because no
bonds nave been issued.
The Attorney General says on the first point:
II is my opinion that Section 132 of the Cen
eral Canal law is not applicable 10 the proceed
ings to which you refer heretofore had under
the Barge Canal act.
No such provision is 10 be found in the So
called Barge Canal law. The question then
arises whether Section 1872 Of the Cana! law is
10 be read IN connection with the Barge Canal
law. 1t is manifest that the legislative intent
as expressed in the Barge Canal law, was TO
provide a plan in that law, complete within
itself for awarding the contracts contemplated
under that statute
Thus the statute provides for the issuing of
bonds and the sale thereof for the purpose Of
making partial or final payments ON the work
contracted for in accordance with the provis-
ions OF this act"
am of the opinion that Section 132 of the
Canal law does not apply the manner and
method of bidding and letting these contracts,
end that the provisions in regard thereto are to
be found IN the Barge Canal law itself; and un-
Ger the Barge Canal law, after all the prelim-
mary steps have been properly taken, the Su-
perintendent of Public Works may award the
contract TO the person. firm or corporation who
shall offer 10 do and perform the at the
lowest price. and who shall give adequate Sc
curity for the faithful and complete perform
ance Of the contract"
In relation 10 the second question he says
what has been done is regular. and that the in
tcnt of The statute is that the improvement work
must proceed within three months after the
bonds issued