Where bids must be let to the lowest responsible bidder the city may, if public interest requires it, specify articles covered by patents so that competition is practically impossible.1 The view of the Wisconsin courts originally was that such contracts were in violation of the statute.2 Special statutes were passed thereupon to make such contracts valid and these statutes were upheld.3 Some states hold such contracts invalid.4 Some jurisdictions hold that specifications of natural material of which one vendor has a monopoly are valid0;5 others that they are invalid.6 If the article is manufactured but not patented, specifications designating the manufacturer have been held invalid if other manufacturers produced as suitable an article.7 In jurisdictions where the product of a designated factory cannot be specified there is a conflict of authority as to whether specifications can call for articles equal to a specified article.8 So in jurisdictions where patented articles may be specified, there is a conflict of authority as to whether bids should be advertised for as in other cases.9

4 Colorado Paving Co. v. Murphy, 78 Fed. 28; 23 C. C. A. 631; 37 L. R. A. 630; Peckham v. Watsonville, 138 Cal. 242; 71 Pac. 169; Kelly v. Chicago, 62 111. 279.

5 State v. Board, etc., of Toledo, 14 Ohio C. C. 15; 7 Ohio C. D. 338.

6 Neff v. Sand Co., 108 Ky. 457; 55 S. W. 697; 56 S. W. 723.

7 People v. Kent, 160 111. 655; 43 N. E. 760; Reuting v. Titusville, 175 Pa. St. 512; 34 Atl. 916.

8 Inge v. Mobile, 135 Ala. 187; 33 So. 678.

9 Schefbauer v. Kearney, 57 N. J. L. 588; 31 Atl. 454.

10 State ex rel. Van Reipen, Mayor, etc., of Jersey City, 58 N. J. L. 262; 33 Atl. 740.

11 State ex rel. McGovern v. Trenton, 60 N. J. L. 402; 38 Atl. 636.

12 State ex rel. Moreland v. Passaic. 63 N. J. L. 208; 42 Atl. 1058.

1 Holmes v. Detroit, 120 Mich. 226; 77 Am. St. Rep. 587; 45 L. R. A. 121; 79 N. W. 200; Attorney General v. Detroit, 26 Mich. 263; Hobart v. Detroit, 17 Mich. 246; 97 Am. Dec. 185 (Nieholson block paving); Verdin v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26; 33 S. W. 480; 36 S. W. 52; Barber, etc., Co. v. Hunt, 100 Mo. 22: 18 Am. St. Rep. 530; 8 L. R. A. 110; 13 S. W. 98; Harlem Gaslight Co. v. Mayor, etc.. of New York, 33 N. Y. 309; Baird v. New York, 96 N. Y. 567 (a patent water meter); In re Dugro, 50 N. Y. 513 (Nicolson block paving); Silsby Mfg. Co. v. Allentown, 153 Pa. St. 319; 26 Atl. 646: Kilvington v. Superior, S3 Wis. 222: 18 L. R. A. 45; 53 N. W. 487 (patent crematory).