880 ARTICLE 4.

their minutes; nor from renting for fixed and limited terms any of its
property not needed for public purposes, on approval of the Commission-
ers of Finance.

For decisions in relation to disposition of its lands and property by the munici-
pality, see,

Rittenhouse v. Mayor, 25 Md. 336. Newbold v. Glenn. 67 Md. 489. Kilpatrlck v
M. & C. C. of Balto., 81 Md. 195. Davidson v. Balto. City, 96 Md. 509.

City may rent city property for entertainments at times when not needed for
public purposes.

Gottleib-Knabe Co. v. Macklin, 109 Md. 429.

1912, ch. 429.

14. Hereafter, in contracting for any public work, or the purchase o±
any supplies or materials, involving an expenditure of five hundred dol-
lars or more for the city, or by any of the city departments, sub-depart-
ments, or municipal officers not embraced in a department, or special
commissions or boards, unless otherwise provided for in this Charter,
advertisements for proposals for the same, shall be first published in two
or more daily newspapers published in Baltimore City, twice or oftener,
the first publication to be made not less than ten nor more than twenty
days prior to the day set for opening the bids; and the contract for doing
said work or furnishing said supplies or materials, shall be awarded by
the board provided for in the next section of this Charter, and in the mode
and manner as therein prescribed.

American Lighting Co. v. McCuen, 92 Md. 702. Packard v. Hayes. 94 Md. 233.
Smith v. Hayes. 98 Md. 485. Building Supply Co. v. Baltimore City, 100 Md. 192.
Flack v. M. & C. C. of Balto., 104 Md. 130.

As to cases arising out of contracts with city prior to the enactment of the New
City Charter, see the following:

Baltimore v. Eschbach. 18 Mel. 276. Mayor. &c.. v. Reynolds. 20 Md. 1. Mayor
v. B. & O. R. R. Co.. 21 Md. 52. Rittenhouse v. M. & C. C. of Balto., 25 Mel. 330,
Mayor v. Musgrave. 48 Md. 272. Mayor. &c.. v. Weatherby. 52 Mel. 442. Kelly v.
Mayor, 53 Mel. 134. Morgan v. M. & C. C. of Balto.. 58 Md. 509. Baltimore v.
Raymo, 68 Md. 569. Wilson v. Balto. City. 83 Md. 203. See further. Mealy v. M. &
C. C. of Hagerstown. 92 Mel. 741. Sec also cases under Section 15. post.

Alternative system of bidding.

Baltimore City v. Flack, 104 Mel. 130.

Selection of material for paring.—Discretion to choose between several kinds may
be delegated.

Baltimore v. Gahan, 104 Md. 157.

Notice must be published in English language, unless notice published as re-
quired, award of contract will be enjoined.

Bennett v. City, 106 Mel. 485.

When the lowest bid is not in conformity with the specifications as advertised,
the contract may be awarded to the next lowest bidder.

Maryland Pavement Co. v. Mahool. 130 Mel. 397.

The purchases by the Board of Police Commissioners included in their estimate
of expenses are not subject to the provisions of this section and Section 36B con-
strued in connection with Section 747.

Thrift v. Ammidon. 126 Mel. 126.

Alternative bids. etc.

Konig v. M. & C. C.. 126 Mel. 606.

1908, ch. 193.

15. All bids made to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for
supplies or work for any purpose whatever, unless otherwise provided in