For the purpose ai this opinion we are assuming that by the terms *foreign soumesm and nforeign cement* is neant oemmt iraa sources outside or the United States.

The State Bighway Department is a creature of the Legislature, ahd th%reiore has no UXWJ power than thhat granted by its orsator.

hrticle 667:h, Vernon*8 Annotated Civil Statutes, provides that all oontracts for the iaproveiaant, aonstruo- tlon and malntenameioi the state highway sy3tfm shell be by ooxpotitivo bldii.

uost;or our statutes Soverning the letting oontracts provide that the contrrnot shall be let tb:the &owest bidder to the lowest responsible bidder. But the Legislature has bivsn the 3tato Highway Cozssission more latltudo aoncerning its aontracts,

As stntedin YcQuillan on ?&xnicl~jal Corporations, Volme III, Seotion 1286:

*Suoh requirements (cmpetltlve bids) m-6 ror the :ur~oss Inviting co.npetition, to guard against favoritism, improvldenae, extravaganae, traud and corruption in the awarding ol municipal contracts, and to secure the best work or sup@es at the lowest prim pssibls, and are enaoted ior the benefit ot the property holder ami t',le tax papr, and wldders,

and shall be coastrued and administered as to accomplish suoh y,poses fairly and rea- sonably with sole reference to the public lntarest.w (&nphasis ours)

And in Dillon on L31~1icl.pal Corporations, Section 802, it is said:

wCo.qetitlve offars or bids have WJ other object but to Snsure eoonoq sn3 ox- alude favoritfsm and oorruption ih the @XII- nishing of labor. . . for the use3 of the city." (Zuphasis ours)

Honorable Julian Montgomery, Fwe.3

In the oaee mll.r Bit?llithiO cmipaoy vs. xuecae County, ll 3. W. ~(sli) 303, Justioe Leddy of the Comni~sion of Appeala, in disausalng oozpetitive bids as reqj&ed in Artiole 2268, W:plete Texas %otutes, lQ20, said:

"The clear purpose o? the enactn!ent of this statute was to enable oounties to obtain the performanae of any pub110 wrks at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer." It is. therefore, oux opinion that the Pur;ose of the Legislature in enaoting Article 6874h, supra, was to taxpayers the construction, itiproveosnt, Qroaure for the of a system of state hip&ways at the lowest and maintenance coat gossible.

It is a matter of o-on kmwledi58 that r0mgn Portland Casmnt aan ba purahased at a less price than do- mestio Portland Cms%nt. It is elementary that the~coat. ceneat la a large faotor 1x1 determining the ooet of aon- struation work. The clause sou&t to be inserted in the specifications would prohibit the use foreign cement, end thereby neoesaarily inareaae the bida Sor suah work. In other words, the clause would be in direat contravention of the purpose the Legislature had in mind when it enaotad Article v574b, supra.

It is, therefore, our opinion that t3e State Highway Depertment does not have authority to insert the olause provldlnz for a fiftean per aent differential on the unit price bid in favor of domestia csssnt ov:r Soreign cement.

Tru3ting t-t the iore~oi3!~ fully answers your Inquiry, we sre

Yours very truly