The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-08
brokerage on Dealings with Govern
ments

From the Times.
If the decision of the Court of Common
Pleas in the case of Southland VS.. Boyd shall
be sustained and become settled law, its effects
upon the business of brokerage and upon the
dealings of Government will be very impor-
tant. The case was brought by shipbrokers
to recover commissions upon a charter of a
ship which they had effected for her owner to
the Government, and the Court held that an
agreement to compensate a broker for such
services was illegal, and could not be enforced
by the broker.
The Court placed its decision upon the
authority of case decided by the Supreme
Court OF the United States-the case of Norris
VS.. The Providence Tool Company. In that
case 1t appeared that Norris, who was sort
of an adventurer, had procured for the Tool
Company a contract from the War Department
to furnish $4,000 muskets, having agreed
with the Company previously that if he got it
for them, they would pay him for his services
propOrtionately to the extent of the contract
Norris sued the Company for his pay, and
recovered judgment against them for S13, 500.
On appeal to the Supreme Court this judg-
ment was reversed, the Court holding that 'an
agreement for compensation to procure a con-
tract from the Government to furnish its sup
plies cannot be enforced by the Courts,''
because it is contrary to public policy. The
Court refers as analogous cases to agreement
to procure appointments to public offices, and
agreements to procure favors from legislative
bodies which have been also held void as
contrary to public policy.
1t seems to us that this brokerage case goes
little further than even the Norris case, and
that the question of public policy is not quite
so clear in reference to it. The business of
brokers is as well known, as universal, and as
l. l. l..
found to be beneficial to commerce, and ad-
vantageous both to purchaser and to seller.
If it were not, it would not have become so
firmly established in the commercial relations
of the world. 1t is clearly in accordance with
public policy that the Government should be
excluded from all the advantages of dealing
with brokers, and compelled in all cases to
deal directly with its customers. Ii Is plain
that such must be the result of the establish
ment of the rule of law that was laid down by
the Court of Common ssPleas. 1t broker
cannot recover his commissions on dealing
with the Government, as he can on dealings
with other parties, he will not deal with the
Government. The result of such a rule might
not be so favorable to the public interest as
the Court seems to suppose. Take the case
of Ships for instance. If the Government
wished to charter ships in this port, none
would be offered to it except by shipOwners
VINO were on Ile SpOt 10 10 lne DuSlueSS I1euu-
selves, while otherwise the competition Of
ships whose owners resided anywhere in the
country could be brought in. The same
result might follow in all the business dealings
of the Government.
1t seems to us questionable whether othel
rules and principles should be held to govern
the business dealings between the Government
and its citizens, than those which prevail il
the business dealings of the community
among themselves. Itmay be, however, founC
that the opposite rule will have no ill effects
and that the services of brokers can be vel
dispensed with in government matters. Pos
! sibly it will be found to work so well as Il
spread into other branches of business, and t.
result in teaching the community that they
would all do better to do the business them
! selves, and that the money paid to brokers
might just as well as not be saved. But
Motif brokers are to be employed in ordi
| nary transactions-there may well be differ
! ence between such ordinary transactions anC
the procuring of contracts from heads of de
! partments by persons not regularly and pub
| licly employed in such business.