Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-05

The Districts agent" "quasi-agent," ''in-
termediary," assistant to the Commissioners,
cousin" by courtesy, and confidential friend
and adviser by official adoption, must go. There
is no legal authority for his employment or
engagement" In many instances he has been
entirely unnecessary, in most instances unduly
expensive and in all instances where his compen-
sation is added to the vendors price to make
up what the District pays, his employment,
though it may incidentally have at times
saved the District money, has been illegal
In Mr.. Dodge's case and others resembling it
the intermediary was known to represent the
District, and his compensation was openly and
avowedly added to the price, which the VEN
dor was willing to take. His services, if any,
were clearly rendered to the District and con-
sisted in cutting down, by bargaining, the ven-
doris price, The vendor of course, would not
employ and pay him for this service, and his
compensation clearly came from the District.
In this class of cases the question is not
whether the intermediary cannot bargain more
shrewdly than the Commissioners and thus
earn the money which the District pays him.
The law makes no provision for his employ
ment and payment, and throws the task of bar
gaining upon the Commissioners as one Of the
services for which their salaries are paid. If
the mere fact that the Commissioners can per-
form their official functions better through
agents than in person justifes the
employment and payment of a pnrchas-
ing agent in this case, then the
Commissioners might turn over all their
duties to expert agents to be performed at adj
ditional expense to the District, and retain
to themselves merely the function of drawing
their salaries as the only one which somebody
else cannot perform better than they. In the
police station case the vendor prior to the in
termediary did not know that he was selling TO
the District. The intermediary pocketed one
half the selling commission as agent Of the
buyer, and the profits on a resale to the Dis
trict as the buyer himself. The main question
in this case is whether the Districts inter-
mediary did not, through the law concerning
constructive trusts, really buy for the District
though assuming to buy for himself. In this
event his profits belong to the District, and
may be recovered. In other cases where
the vendor did not know that he was selling
to the District, and where the intermediary
received commission from the vendor, the
question whether the District has suffered loss
depends upon the size of the commission paid
enhancing the price to the District. Undoubt-
edly in some instances the act of closing a
negotiation Of purchase for the District can be
best accomplished by some other person than
the Commissioners personally. But their
agent, to keep within the intention of the law,
must serve them gratuitously as a friendly act
or be satisfied with dividing the ordinary COM
mission with the sellers agent, and the Commits
sioners are in duty bound to see to it that his
compensation does not increase the amount
which the District pays. The complaint against
the method Of purchase employed is not that
it has resulted in swelling the prices paid to
amounts ON their face excessive, extortionate,
and suggesting a Job" but that in the cases
mentioned and in Others like them, not yet
thoroughly examined, the District has paid
ascertainable amounts to an intermediary in
most cases needlessly, and in all cases without
authority of law, and that the prices are exces-
sive by these specific amounts.