Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-03-01

1t will be recalled that at the last
| meeting of the City Council, Mr.. Ross
Chew, a Republican member of the
Second Branch from the First Ward,
raised a question as to the eligibility
of Mr.. Oliver, who had been appointed
/ Superintendent of the Water Works,
on the ground that he is a member
of firm which does work for the
city, and the further fact that he kept
a store, and had a bill for supplies to
the city pending in Council that night.
point made by Mr.. Chew, was the ref
erence of the matter to the City So
licitor for his opinion. The Solicitor
prepared an opinion, which was trans
mitted to Council last night. 1t sus-
tains Mr.. Chew in his position, and is
also significant as affecting members
of the City Council. The full text of
the opinion is as follows:
Judge Dillon. in his work upon munic-
ipal corporations, says, sec IN: 1t Is
he who is entrusted with tine business OF
Others cannot make such business an OBJ
Ject of pecuniary profit to himself. This
opinion does not depend upon reasoning
technical in its character. and IS not local.
in it's application. 1t has its foundation
in the very constitution of our nature,
for it has been authoritatively declared
that a man cannot serve two masters,
and it is recognized and enforced wher-
ever a we'll regulated system of juris-
prudence prevails. The law will in no case
permit persons who have undertaken a
character or a charge, to change or invert
that character by leaving it and acting
for themselves in a business IN which their
character binds them to act for others.
The application of the rule may appear
in some instances to bear hard upon in
divldualS, who have committed no moral
wrong, but it rs essential to the keeping
OF all parties filling a hduciary character
to their duty, to preserve the rules in Its
integrity, and to apply it to every case
which justly falls within its principle.
THE principle generally applicable to
all officers and directors of a corporation
is that they cannot enter into contracts
with such corporation to do work fot 1t,
nor can they subsequently derive any ben
eft personally from such contract. To
deny the application of the rule to munic-
ipal bodies would, in the opinion of the
Canadian chancery court, whose views
we adopt and approve. be to deprive the
rule of much of its value for the we'll
working of the municipal system, through
which a large portion of the affairs of
the country are administered. must de-
pend very much upon the freedom from
abuse with which they are conducted.
Nothing can more tend to correct the
tendency to abuse than to make the
abuses Improbable to those who engage
in them, and to have them stamped as
abuses in the courts of Justice
In Brown VS.. Lindsay, 20 Upper Cana
dian Queens Bench, 500 an action at law
on a contract for a sale of goods, by a
trading. partnership, was successfully re-
sisted, because a member of the partner
council.
The council of the city of Albany con-
tracted with one of its members to fur
nish horses and carriages for a Fourth of
July celebration. He did 50, and brought
an action for recovery OF payment 1t
was held in Smith VS.. the City of Albany
| that Smith could not recover even if the
| subject matter of the contract were valid.
| The court uses this language:
The common council of the city of Al
| bany, of which this plaintiff was a mem
Der, 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 in
terestS of the city as prohibited any men,
| Der of the board from entering into any
arrangement with his associates by which
+! his individual interests saould come in
conflict with the interests of his conStit-
uents, who are entitled exclusively to
such an exercise of his caution and judg-
ment in their behalf, as an ordinarily pru-
dent man would exercise in his own hI-si-
ness. In bargaining for the city, he could
not be one of the party acting as an en-
ploYer, and become himself, by the same
bargain, an employee"
In People VS.. Township Board ii. Mich,
90. such contract was held void and
against public policy. In this case men,
Der of council was one of several members
of a contracting firm. The court says
We think it no exception TO the rule
that all members of the contracting firm
were not members of the Board of Free
holders (counciD, or that those who were
| members were a minority of the Board
The rule would not amount to much If It
could be evaded in such way. 1t might
almost as well not exist, as to exist with
such an exception. The public would reap
little or no benefit from it,
In Grand Island Gas Co. VS. West. e
Neb, 49, the The Grand Island Light and
Fuel Company, a corp<ation, contracted
with the city of Grand GAand to light its
streets with electricity for one year at a
fixed price per month. At the time of
the making of such contract, one, West
was a member of the city council, and also
stakeholder in, and the secretary and
treasurer of said corporation. 1t was held
that the contract was illegal and that q
taxpayer could maintain an action to
cancel it.
These authorities are but a few of the
many on the subject. The law is well
settled that such contracts are against
public policy, and therefore Illegal.
For Sale at a great bargain-Confec-
TONERS Bakers and Ice Cream Max