Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-06-22
HOLD MANY CONFERENCES
F. Morrow Explains Counsel
Thomas Brief.
STREET PAVING CONTRACTS
Authority Given by Congress in
View Of Magnitude and Char
acter Of Work.

1t is stated at the District building that
the Commissioners will within few days
reach an agreement in connection with
the recent "favoritism' Investigation
based on charges preferred against the en-
gineer department Of the District by the
Brennan Construction Company. The
Commissioners have held several confer
ences of late, and it is believed they have
about reached a conclusion.
More than a week ago Corporation
Counsel Thomas. who was in daily attend
ance at the sessions throughout the inves-
tigation. submitted to the Commissioners
a brief prepared by him explaining the
various points of law raised and defining
the rights of the Commissioners in the
matter Of awarding contracts.
This brief was printed in substance in
the Star at the time. but Commissioner
MorrovS today, after carefully considering
It: explained the points mentioned by Mr..
ThomsZ
Explains Points of Brief.
The points decided by the corporation
counsel. Maj. Morrow says. may be
briefly stated as follows:
AS a preamble to his opinion he
quotes law under which the Commits
sioners are authorized to award con-
tracts and the action Of the Commits
s1oners leading up to the award of the
contract for sheet asphalt pavement for
the fiscal years 1907 and 1908, including
the specifications upon which the work
was advertised. He first takes up the
authority of the Commissioners to
award contracts as Contained in the or
ganic act. and quotes from a previous
decision of the Court OF Appeals in the
case OF Downing VS.. Ross, where a simi-
lar question was raised.
thn ~ xIa%
the duty of determining the lowest re-
sponstble bidder was not of strictly
ministerial nature, but involved the ex-
erclse of official discretion. and stated
benefit and protection of the public.
rather than the bidders In this case
the authority of the Commissioners.
which had been questioned. was decided
In their favor. He points out that the
facts in the Brennan case are very SINH
lar to those in the Downing case. and.
states that in the specifications the
commissioners reserve the right to re-
5ect any and all proposals, or parts of
proposals, and that under such clause
the Commissioners have the right to re-
ject any part of proposal, or accept
any part, in their discretion. He points
out similar cases which have occurred
in the engineer department of such a
division OF contract and states he finds
there was no departure from the specifi-
cations in dividing the street paving con-
tract between the Crawford Paving Com
pany and the Brennan Construction
his opinion as follows:
Valid and Binding.
being of opinion that the Commission
ers in their notice for proposals and speci-
f1cations and in their award acted in
the exercise Of judgment copfided to them
by law and within their power. it follows
that the contracts that were subsequently
made are valid and binding contracts.
and that the Commissioners are estopped
from resembling them. Particularly are
the contractors estopped in this case in
view OF ther performance in large part
of this work under their contract and
the receipt of money hereunder. The
Commissioners could not, in the public
interest now with safety undertake to
review their decision and could not place
the parties in their original status if they
did
with reference to the point raised as
to the awarding of work under the ap-
preparation for elimination of grade cross
ings. under the contract of the Crawford
Paving Company. in excess of appropria
tions, he states that il the Commission
ers had no appropriation available they
had no authority to bind the District by
orders to do work beyond existing ap-
propriations. though Congress could sub
sequently approve or ratify such action
proval was subsequently given by Con-
gress.
Necessity for Expedition.
with reference to the statements made
by counsel for the Brennan Company at
the hearing that this work should not
have been awarded without advertisement
the corporation counsel states that he be-
lieves such advertisement was not neces-
sary, as the Commissioners were given
general authority in the act providing
for the Union station to do this work
by contract or otherwise, and that under
this provision the Commissioners have
discretion to do 1t by contract after proper
advertisement. or to do 1t otherwise. with
out such advertisement
This authority of Congress. he points
out. was given to the Commissioners in
view of the magnitude and unusual char
acter of this work and the necessity for
expedition in carrying it out"
BRYAN INVITES SWANSON.
Gle Govarn0r fo Second His NOm-