The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-08-07
STATE BOARD is
fully SUSTAINED
Attorncy-General Declares It's
Right to Purchase School
Furniture Is Supreme.
SCORES ANDREWS COMPANY
Controversy Between State and
Norfolk City Boards Prob
ably Ended.
sc ORES ANDREWS COMPANY

After a long drawn out controversy
concerning authority to purchase fur
niture for the public schools. the State
Board OF Education won sweeping
victory over the Norfolk city board
yesterday in an elaborate opinion rem
dcred by Attorney General Anderson
The rights OF the State Board arc
sustained at every point and the At
torney- General does not fail to pay his
respects to the a. II. Andrews Com.
pany, which overbid the Virginia
| School Supply Company when the
| State Board was asking for proposals.
It seems that after the Virginia School
| Supply Company had secured the con.
| tract for furniture on bid twenty
| five cents per desk under that of tho
4 Andrews Company, the latter offered
the city board an even lower figure
4 and here the trouble started. THE State
/ Board declared that it alone had tho
1 right to select furniture under tho
| school laws OF the State, but the City
| Attorney. of Norfolk took issue, anu
sustained the action OF the local board.
| 1t is believed that the opinion of tho
AttorneyGe viii probably end tha
controversy, and that the local board
i Will refrain from violating the man-
/ date Of the State Board.
Supreme Power.
After fully reviewing the law on tho
subject tho opinion says:
4 TT cannot be ga!nsaid that this
power and authority is absolutely ex-
z elusive Of any power in city or dis
trict boards"
Again the Attorney General speaks
. OF this power "ns absolutely para
mount to any other authority in the
State"
Further on he says: II conclude.
Therefore. that the act of the State
j, Board Of Education In selecting the
school desks described in the proposal
OF the Virginia School supply Com
pany, which selection was carried into
, effect in the contract made by the
, board with the said company. was a
: valid contract not only binding upon
j the State Board and upon the Virginia
: school Supply Company, but binding
! in every school district in the State
/, and every school official intthe State
I Company scored.
G The Andrews Company is taken
2 sharply TO task in the following Ian
: guage.4
: ~ do not think. therefore, that the
/ A. RI. Andrews Company which was
fully informed that the desks offered
> by the Virginia School supply Company
= had been selected by your board over
I
contract which the a. RI. Andrews
Company desired to secure had been
awarded to the Virginia School Sup-
ply Company, which was lower bid
der: and as am informed by the sec
rotary OF the State Board of Education
were also fully informed as to the
terms of Circular letter No. 297' OF
!, date July 8. 1906. could fairly or In
= nocently make a proposal to the School
Board of the city OF Norfolk, Of theil
desks at any price. even though greatly
:. lower than the price at which the Vir-
= GINA School Supply Company haG
y agreed to furnish the same; nor do
: think that the State or city officials
j ought to sanction any such transaction
y
"If such conduct as has character,
!. lied the A. III. Andrews Company II
- this matter could be sanctioned, or toll
= Grated, any effort on the part of thu
!; State TO protect It's people would BIZ
= worse than useless"
4 Illegal and Invalid,
The opinion of the Attorney Genera
concludes as follows:
I'm my view, therefore, the contrac
I'd made by the State with the Virgins
Supply Company is a valid contract
Ut and the contract made by the Schoo
~ Board of Norfolk with the A. II. An
i'm drews Company is an illegal and in
m valid contract, and l think that til
nd school authorities Of the State shout
81, et insist that the Norfolk board shout
,st disregard a contract made by the sal
A. II. Andrews Company so flagranti
in violation of right and law"
. -----------------.