Arizona republican., 1921-05-27

SAYSF. N. H0LMQU|ST
 May 2s. 1921. Editor, The Arizona Republican.
 Phoenix, Ariz.
 Dear Sir:
 I refer to your article in this morn ing's Republican entitled Manager of Paving Company Explains Price Comparison"
 While there may be reasons for | city paving done under the special | improvement act costing more than p g work done on q ash basis, it | is worthy of note that Warren Brothers bid for patented bitulithic on the Phoenix road was l S215, 5,6552O as compared with the bid | of s1SS.437.00 by White and Miller | for practically identical pavement unpatented. The state highway de- | partment has no apologies or ex l plantations to offer for securing good l prices on state work and we are will ' ing to let the price comparison stand. I quote the last paragraph of the 1 article which pertains to alleged pat ented pavement: I "Concerning the statement that one 1 of the asphalt bids for the Phoenix 1 Glendale road contract was made un | der guaranty of the state to pro- tect the bidder against suit for in- l fringement, MT. Conway said that | the supposed guaranty was not really a guaranty, though it looked like 1 one; it looked so much like it, in | fact, that Warren Brothers took it up with one of the attorneys for the company and notice was served on the state engineers department that 1 a suit for infringement would be brought if an effort was made to evade the royalty claimed by Warren 1 Brothers. MT. Conway said he was | informed by Assistant State Engi- | neer Holmquist that the supposed I guaranty was not a guaranty, but only a new specification, and that the state did not intend to stand behind the bidder"
 ]. The specifications refer to cover ! a pavement substantially the same as that laid in Phoenix until two or three years ago. The guaranty re- ], ferred to is contained in the follow ing paragraph from our specified tions found on page 2, Specification No. 3: The state assumes the re- !, sponsibility of defending any and all } suits brought for infringement of any patent claimed to be infringed by the design, type of structure or material provided for in plans, fur nished to the contractors by the state, unless specifically stated in this contract that the use of such patented material, design or process is to be furnished by the contractor at his own cost and expense, and to : hold the contractor harmless on ac- , count of such suits or claims for royalty"
 As the proposed contract did not , specifically state that the contractor would be responsible for infringe ments, it is obvious that the state } would guarantee the bidder against royalty If the clause in the specif ications would not be a sufficient guarantee we would provide such a proficient guarantee in the contract That we would not be assuming an unreasonable obligation is apparent from the fact that in the state of Oregon no royalties have been claimed for this type of pavement laid for the state highway department since May 5, 1920, as shown in the following letter quoted in full:
 OREGON STATE HIGHWAY X COMMISSION
 s. Benson, Portland, Chairman : R. A.. Booth, Eugene; Ed F.. Riddle  Q Herbert Nunn
 . State Highway Engineer r. Roy A. Klein
 Secretary and Assistant Engineer
 Salem, Sept. 21, 1920. State Highway. Engineer,
 Phoenix, Ariz-
 Dear Sir:
 In accordance with your telegram of Sept. 20 addressed to us at Port land, we are today mailing you ; copy of our standard specifications together with the mimeographet copy of our revised specifications fo
 bituminous pavements.
 In your telegram you state tha you understand that we are build ing practically a bitulithic pavemen
 without royalty" In this regard vii
 say that we have for some time beel constructing bitulithic pavement il
 connection with our state highway
 work. Prior to about February, 1918
 the contractor was required to mee
 royalties charged in connection wit | this pavement Subsequent to tha
 time the state highway departmen
 has assumed responsibility for in | fringement and has refused paymen | of royalties. Settlement of this ma
 ter has been taken into the court by Warren Brothers, but the cas
 has not yet come up for hearing. You are probably aware that tn Warren patents on bitulithic pave
 ments expired on May ,, 1920, an
 upon pavements laid subsequent t that date no royalties are claimed You will. note that our revised speci fication for mituminous concret
 wearing surface is nothing more o \ less than a specified tiOn for bitu lithic pavement. In our standar form of specification you will fin the specification for bitulithic pave ment given on page S3. Specification \ for this pavement were submitted | us by Warren Brothers and were al tached to our specifications rathe than incorporated as one of our stand ard specifications on account of le
 gal requirements of our statutes. We trust that we have furnishe you with all the information whio you desire at this time.
 Very truly yours.
 HERBERT NUNN.
 State Highway Engineer.
 By & H. PROBERT (signed
 Office Engineer.
 The statement that l had said u supposed guaranty was not a qua anty and that the state did not il | tend to stand behind the bidder is