Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-06
THE CITY ENGINEER
Replies to Charges Preferred by
Mr.. Guy.
lie Same Question Arose in 1904
ana WAS Referred the CITY AZ.
torncy aud Decided That No Law
Had Been Violated,

4 .
a member of the Board of Street, Sewer
and Drain Commission, in which he
charged that certain councilmen were
selling goods to the city in violation of
law, and that Commissioners Hofhei-
mer and Cooke, who authorized the
said purchases and approved bills for
the same, were violating the law.
AIR. Hofheimer's letter to the councils
giving the names of the councilmcn 10
whom Mr.. Guy referred and the
amount Of their sales was also publish
ed yesterday.
rHD CITY ENGINEERS STATE
MENT.
The following letter from the City
! Engineer states upon what authority
the board acted and discusses the
| merits OF the case:
Norfolk. Va. April ;. 1899.
The Honorable the Select and Common
Councils. Norfolk. Va:
! Observation-Disclosures read i'm vester-
day mornings Nirginian- Pilot that Mr..
Guy. member of the Board of Street.
! Sewer ana Drain commissioners. has
addressed to your honorable bodies Il
/ communication in which he charges il
| leSal action on the part Of the said
"V''' u al tiie matter OF their purchasing
| supplies for the city. beg leave to
state that the question raised by Mr..
Guy is by no means 4 new one. nor is
he its original discoverer
AS far back us August ;. 1924, being
troubled with the same qualms rs now
Affect Mr.. Guy. wrote the following
letter 10 the city Attorney. he being
| by law the interpreter Of ordinances
anu statutes and the adviser of city
/ officers:
:. 5. Lambeth. Esq. City Attorney:
Dear Sir.-T hope l may not be tres
| passing on your valuable time in maxi
| ing the following interrogatory, and
knowing how ytu are pressed would not
/ do so but for the fact that justice to
I some of our fellow citizens compels me.
An act of Legislature, April = 1877. 20
/ ne seen on page 203 Of the city ordi-
/ nances of 1881 says that it shall not
/ be lawful for any member Of the coun-
ell or Board nj Aldermen. or any other
| official or agent including commissions
erS appointed for opening streets Of any
! CITY or other incorporated town. To he
contractor With the corporation for
/ any work on labor ordered To be done
| or goods, wares or merchandise or sup
| plies ordered by the said corporation to
/ be furnished, or in any manner directly
! or indirectly interested in the.proiits of
any such contract, and every contract
entirely void. etc. Then follows the
| penalty.
The question is whether this law
| precludes officers of the city from pur-
chasing articles from stores owned by
members of the City Councils when
| such articles are there exposed for sale
10 everybody at standard prices? This
question has arisen, and do not de-
sire 10 do injustice to merchants with
whom the city has dealt for 4 number
OF years by stopping purchases from
them il it is legal to continue the said
purchases.
Very respectfully.
CIV. 4. BROOKE
"'City Engiueer'"
TO this letter | received the follow
ing reply, which is on file at this Office:
wv. L. Brooke. ESQ, City Engineer
Dear Sir,-Keplying to your favor
of the Sd instant in regard 10 the right
q; councilmen and other persons con-
nectcd with the city selling To the city
We would refer YOU 10 an opinion al
ready rendered ana in the hands of
Councilman Ira Il. White and which
was rendered by Acting city Attorney
shelton in the absence of myself ii.a...-
the city, but which meets with my APP
prevail. 1t IL; believed that YOU will fra
all the information you wish in this
Very respectfully.
IS. :. LAMBETH.
city Attorney.'"
1T will be seen from The above let
ter that others, besides myself. had
entered into the inquiry. ard the opln-
ion OF the then city Attorney-a copy
Of which is hereto appendet--wa.;
shortly after the rendition. laid before
the Board Of Street, Sewer ana Drain
commissioners ana several committees
OF councils, and became their guide ana
authority iii any action in the prem
Uses. The language of the opinion Is
comprehensive logical ana 10 my mind
convincing. and since it's receipt we
have had nothing else to guide or direct
Us in any better way
~ clipping from the Public Ledger.
of July 81, 1894 speaking of the cues
ton rs to whether firms who have any
members in the councils can sell TO the
city. says: Mr.. shelton decided that
these firms have perfect right 10 sell
goods TO the city in the ordinary course
of business. but they have not the right
to bid for and take contracts for sun
plying the city with materials.' SO IL
VIII be seen that the opinion Of the
city Attorney was made public and
If untenable. open for adverse criti
cisnl' Ihere was nothing of the kind
at the time or subsequently. Had the
opinion been untenable or such as 10
work violation OF the law. II is
strange that some of the various news
papers of that day. all except one of
which We're adverse 10 the council then
in power, did not so discover ana make
vigorous attack.
My contention is that the Board Of
Street. Sewer and Drain Commissions
ers and other committees have been
and are acting with perfect legality so
long as the foregoing opinion stands.
Very respectfully.