The Washington times., 1910-03-14
Members of Congress Told
They Do Not Have to
Reopen Bids.
ASSERTS THE BOND
WAS NOT APPROVED
Legislators Therefore Within Their
Rights, Says Court, in Acting
as They Did.

Members OF the Joint committee of
Congress on printing were within their
rights when they refused 70 accept the
hid Of the Valley Paper Company Of
Massachusetts,.
In this manner Justice Wright dis
posed of the petition fled By the paper
company for a writ Of mandamus 20
compel the members Of Congress to re
open the bids for printing and binding
The case has become a famous one by
reason Of the decision which was
reached by Justice Wright two weeks
ago today holding that the court had
the right 10 reprove the action Of a
Congressional committee whose duties
are administrative
Members Refuse Bid.
The Valley Paper Company bid was
received among thirty-seven others or
January q. On January . the paper
company was notified by the Joint com
mittee that their bid did not conform
with the requirements Of law in that the
the bond attached thereto was accom-
panied by a certificate which WIS not
signed by the clerk or the judge of any
court OF record.
hearing was allowed them on Janu-
ary q and this time. al other bids hay
ing been opened. the Vsuey Paper COM
pany filed with the committee an ad-
ditionaI certificate signed by Justice
Stafford Of the District Supreme Court.
Failing to receive the bid. the Valley
Paper Company applied for a writ Of
mandamus, and after the case was
argued il was submitted TO the judge on
a consideration as to whether the bond
of the Valley Paper Company met the
requirement OF law. Attorney Frederick
r. Rhodes. for the paper company. ar
gued that the reliability Of the Illinois
Surety Company. bE whom the Valley
c0mpany's bid was bonded. was certified
to BY a Judge Of a court Of record on
{ bid submitted by Honenmeyer Com
pany, and that the reliability Of the
surety company was being attested. and
not that Of the individual bond. once
such certifcation was sufficient.
IN deciding the case Justice Wright
said:
Courts Decision.
The court IS required TO find that az
the time the sealed proposal of TIE
plaintiff was opened along with other
a bond approved by a judge or clerk OF
4 court of record"
The Judge summed up the case as
follows.
"By submitting his sealed proposal
without a certificate from a judge OF
clerk Of a court OF record, the law would
have assured to - bidder that ne would
not be bound by that bid, therefore, the
joint committee could not consider it
at least so long as it was unaccom-
panied by the cerudcate; now. If after
the bids were an opened, there turns
up This one bidder after thus knowing
the bids submitted by his competitors
could then suffer his Illegal bid 10 con-
tinle illegal by Withholding he certIf-
cate IL ne saw in the figure Of the
others that which justified him. or If
he pleased. ne coula az Indt late hOIr
turn his Illegal bid into a good bid by
uisplayin- to the joint committee a
certificate Of approval On a separate
sheet.
THE court finds from the fact that
the allegation OF the petition above
quoted is not sustained by the proof,
that the proposal OF the plaintiff was
not In the form required by law: that
il was not accompanied by a bond. ap-
proved by a judge or a clerk Of a court
Of record. that for the reason the joint
committee was under - duty 10 enter
tain il or give II any consideration"
At the conclusion Of the decision At
torney Rhodes notified the court that
ne would take an appeal.
The members Of the Joint committee OF
Congress were represented by Attorneys
George r.. Hamilton and John w
NerkeS.