The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-09-10
THE BID WAS ILLEGAL
PROHIBITED BY THE CODE, SAYS
CITY ATTORNEY WATSON.
He RENDERS AN OPINION ON THE CASE
The Matter is Now Reopened and Purchasing
Agent Sale Asks for Sealed Bids for
the Boiler, Engine and
Rock Crusher.

ed the contract for the engine, boiler
and rock-crusher to be purchased by the
city, has withdrawn his bid and sur
rendered the contract. This he did as
"a result of the opinion of City Attor-
ney Watson who, after investigating,
decided that the contract was illegal
and in violation of plain provision
of the Code. The matter is now re-
opened and Mr.. Sale, purchasing agent
for the city, asks that sealed bids be
submitted on the articles to be furn-
ished. This termination of a matter to
the doubtful legality of which attention
was first called by this paper will doubt
less be satisfactory to all parties.
MIR. HAMILTON'S STATEMENT.
The reporter called upon Alderman
Hamilton to ascertain what action he
would take in regard to his bid, the
City Attorney having given his opinion
that no alderman could sell to the city.
Mr.. Hamilton stated:
when ! put in my bid to sell to the
city machinery which was accepted, /
did so in good faith and with the be-
lief that / had perfect right to do so.
/ was led to this conclusion by the fact
that it has been custom for aldermen
to sell to the city. My right to sell to
sell to the city having been disputed,
asked the City Attorney for his opinion
on the matter. He has given the opinion
that | do not possess the right to sell
to the city, / have therefore withdrawn
my bid and relinquished my rights I'M
der the same as / desire to do nothing
but what is legal and right"
CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION.
To the Mayor of the City of Raleigh.
The right of an officer of the city of
Raleigh to make a contract with the
city for the sale of merchandise having
been questioned, and being requested by
Alderman Hamilton to render my opin-
ion on this question, | herewith submit
the same.
1t is universally held that no officer.
of a municipal corporation can make
contract with that corporation whereby
he will derive a pecuniary benefit. He
as an officer of the municipal corporation
is trustee, having intrusted to him the
interest of the corporation and the peo-
pie. Should he become a contractor or
enter into contract with said munich
pal corporation as an individual he
assumes a dual character; one of a
trustee of the municipal corporation pro
tecting its interest under the contract
the other as a private citizen protecting
his interest under the contract-slistain-
ing the dual character of contractor and
contractee in the same contract This
the law says he cannot do.
Mr. Dillon in his work ON Municipal
Corporations, Vol. ], Sec. Al, says:
1T is a well-established and saIutary
doctrine that he who is lnur,isted with
the business of others cannot be allowed
to make such business an object of PEE
cuniary profit to himself. This rhle does
not depend on reasoning technical in
its character and is not local in it's
application. 1t is based upon principles
of reason, of morality, and of public
policy. The principle generally ap-
plicable to all officers and directors or
a corporation is that they cannot enter
into contracts with such corporation to
do. any work for it, nor can they subse-
quentiy derive the benefit personally from
such contract"
If an officer Of q corporation cannot
enter into a contract for work to be done
by him for the corporation, for which
he receives pay, he cannot enter Into
a contract ito sell the corporation any
thing for which he will receive pay:
one contract sells work to the corpora
tion the other sells merchandise. The
conclusion follows that he cannot make
ii contract with the corporation under
which contract he receives pecuniary
benefit.
A few cases are here presented:
An officer of village is prohibited
from making any contract with the trus-
tees to do work for the village, to be
paid for out of the treasury, and any
such contract is void, and such officer
will be entitled to no compensation for
anything he may do under such con-
tract.
The village of Dwight VS.. Palmer, "a.
III, 296.
In Smith VS.. The City of Albany, 81
\. Y. Al, the facts were these: The
common council of the city Of Albany
(0f which Smith was member) adopt
ed a resolution, appropriating $1,000, for
the purpose of celebrating the Fourth of
July. Under this resolution a commit
tee of the members of the council was
appointed to arrange for the celebration,
under whose employment Smith fur1l-
ished horses and carriages for the sum
of Sl39, which were used in the celes
bration. Smith brought an action to col
lect this amount The court said:
The Common Council of the city
of Albany, of which plaintiff was a mem
ber were the agents of the city, and
while holding that relation to it. Each
member of that body was under such
an obligation Of absolute loyalty to the
interest of the city as prohibited any
member of the board from entering into
any arrangement with his associates by
which his individual interest could CON
fiict with the interest of his constituents.
who are entitled exclusively TO such
an exercise Of his caution and Judgment
in their behalf as an ordinary prudent
man would exercise i'm his own business.
In bargaining for the city he could NOT
he one of party, acting as employer.
and become himself, by the same bar
gain, an employee"
Where the statute prohibiting GER
tain officers from being Interested IN