The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1912-04-24
BELTSROAD CASE
Continued from Page 81

the court IN the absence Oh Il SnOWluB
of fraud, or collision, or arbitrary
action amounting to fraud 1t is ad-
mitted that the consideration and de-
termination Of the question of the .
responsibility was done, |
not at an open meeting of the com .
mission, but behind closed doors But
it is argued that II in fact the in
vestigation was fair, impartial, and /
sufficiently thorough the decision
ought not to be disturbed for the rea-
son alone that the meetings were not
open to the public Assuming with
out deciding, that the point is we'll
taken, and conceding that there was
no evidence that any improper motive
influenced the action of the commits
sion, yet the record shows that the
made was not conducted
with that fairness, imparuality and
thoroughness which should character
ize proceedings of a judicial or quasi
judicial nature. At the meeting of
the commission at which the bids
were opened a general discussion was
had in the course of which the state
ment was made that Wilson had fail
ed to fulfil certain contracts which
had been awarded him at previous
times, but no action with reference
to awarding a contract was taken AT
the next meeting, after further dis
cussion, the chairman was directed
to investigate and report as to the
responsibility as contractors of the
three lowest bidders"
"The specifications for a public con.
tract upon which bids are requested
should include every element essen
tial to furnish a common standard
by which to measure the respective
bids, and where they are so indefinite
or misleading as to prevent real COM
petition between the bidders, no valid
contract can be based upon them.
Where, in a call for tenders for the
construction of a road, no time was
| fixed within which the work should
be completed, but the bidders were
required to state in their bids the
time in which they would agree to
complete the work and neither the
call for tenders nor the specifications
stated the value which would be
placed upon the difference in time,
and the awarding officers were not
bound to consider the difference in
time in which the bidders engaged to
complete the work in determining who
was the lowest bidder, held that the
specifications were fatally defective
and no contract could be awarded on
them"
Chairman Adams verbal report at
the third meeting, as reduced to writ
ting, is then quoted showing findings
that John II. Wilson, complainant,
bad satisfactorily performed road
building contracts on Oahu and Maui,
and that he was not wholly to blame
for failure on Kauai by which that
county lost nothing, or for the Homo
lulu sewer contract that was taken
too low, and the Chief Justice pro-
ceeds thus:
The testimony given by the chair
man of the commission before the cir
cult judge shows that in making the
investigation he did not have in mind
Wilson's financial responsibility nor
his ability and skill to do the work.
He seems to have regarded those quail
ifcations as being conceded. He tes-
tilted that his inquiries were directed
solely to the question whether Wilson
was the type of man who stood from
under when he got into hole, or
would live up to his contracts whe
Their pinched or not.
The evidence shows that the prin-
cipal charges made against Wilson
and the only charges which need be
referred to here-were his failure to
complete the work under the outfall
SCNCl NOllIl tlNI anu IllC iAe'uuA iOttN
contract. With reference to those
matters neither the commission or its
chairman made any attempt to get
from Wilson any statement as to why
he failed to carry out his contracts.
No opportunity was given Wilson to
present his side of the case though he
was available and, apparently, anxious
to explain. At the hearing in the court
below Wilson testified in explanation
as to why he had not fulfilled those
two contracts and adduced testimony
of disinterested witnesses as to his
skill ability and experience as a build
er of roads, as we'll as to his business
integrity, and if an opportunity had
been given him to present the evil
dence to the commissioners it would
probably have sufficed to convince
them of Wilson's responsibility. The
commissions investigation was not a
thorough one. It's action was arbit-
rary and unfair because it was done