The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-09-10
viii Not Deprive a Worthy
Charity Of 1t
fORMht ACTION TAKEN
May Aldermen Make Contracts With
Themselves?
The CITY ATTORNEY HAS DECIDlD NOT
An Alderman Pecsivcs $3.50 Tor Doing Work
For the City. A Long Line Of Sup
RENE Court Decisions
Against Such.

Against Such.
called meeting of the executive COM
mittee OF the trustees of the olivia Rancy
Library was held at the office of Battle
Mordecai at Sis O'Clock yesterday az
ternoon Present, S. f. Mordccai, chair,
man. w. N. Jones, w. B. Grimes, r. b.
Raney and JOS G. Brown. The following
copy of the resolution passed by the
Board of Aldermen of the city of Raleigh
was read and brought up for action:
alderman Barbee, chairman of the
finance committee, made report, recon-
mending that the appropriation to Rex
Hospital be reduced to $500 per month,
and that $1,000 per month be appropriated
to the Olivia Raney Library. On motion
the recommendations were adopted"
After consideration of the resolution 1t
was unanimously resolved that the Olivia
Raney Library could not, under the cir
cumstances. accept the appropriation
made by the city of Raleigh under the
said resolution.
1t was stated afterwards by some of
the trustees that they did not care to
take for the library money that ought to
go to worthy charitable institution.
The library will, therefore, continue to
be dependent for support on the gener-
osity of its founder and donor, Mr..
Raney, or be closed up.
A fact of which the PEOPLE of Raleigh
are no doubt much ashamed.
The board raid this year, $3.50 for list
ing the city taxes and making out the tax
books. Last year it cost the city only
sos to have this work done, as most of it
was performed By the assistant health
officer, whose official. DUTIES at this time
OF the year are very light. s
1t is true that the work was never bet
ter done than it has been this year, but
why the change to the more expensive
method?
Can the fact that it was done by a
member of tho Board of Aldermen &C
runt for the. change?
Section IS of the ,Drewry charter,
loptcd in 1899, provides: That no
\yor or Alderman or other officer OF
city, shall directly or indirectly, be-
|lne a contractor .or WORK t. be do:c
4 by the city"
Also The Code prohibits any officer Of
the city having in trust the interest OF
said city, from making contract with
the city whereby he will derive anv
the city whereby he will derive any
benefit. Section 1,o11 provides:
mo person, appointed or elected a
commissioner or director to discharge any
trust wherein the State o. any county,
city or town may be in any manner in
terested, shall become an undertaken, or
make any contract for his own bcnctlt,
under such authority, Or be in any man
ner concerned or Interested in making
such contract, or in the profits thereof.
either privately or openly, singly or
Jointly with another
And yet, in face Of these plain prohibit
tions, the Beard of Aldermen. through
their clerk, contracted with one of their
own number to do $3.50 worth Of work.
But it is not tho amount but tie pr n
ciple and legality of such contracts that
is now called in question.
The present city attorney explicitly
advised the board against this course in
an opinion rendered i.ls. two years ago
on this very point. III that opinion he
used this language:
..It seems to be he'd by the court $
everywhere that no officer of municipal
corporation can make contract Win that
corporation whereby he will derive a pc
cuniary benefit. He, as an officer OF the
municipal corporation is trustee having
intrusted to him the interest OF the cor
poration and the people Should ne pc
come contractor or enter into contract
with said municipal corporation as an IN
dividual, he assumes dual cnaractcr'
one of a trustee of the municlpal cor
poration protecting it's interest under me
contract the other as private CITIZEN
protecting his interest unders tie con :
MISUNDERSTANDING the dual character OF
contractor and contractee in the same
contract. This the law says he cannot
do
In support of this position he quoted
Dillon on Municipal Corporations, vol. j.,
section 444, as follows:
at is a we'll established and salutary
doctrine that he who is intrusted with
the business Of others cannot be allowed
TO make such business an object OF Pc
cuniary profit to himself. This rule does
not depend on reasoning technical In its
character and is not local in it's applica-
ton. 1t is based upon principles OF rea-
SON. of morality, and of public policy.
The principle generally applica-
e to all officers and directors of cor
is that they cannot enter into
contracts with such corporation to do
any work for it, nor can they subsequent
ly derive any benefit personally from
such contract"
A number of cases also were cited In
this opinion to the effect that an officer
of city is prohibited from making any
contract with it's aldermen to do work
for the city. to be paid for out OF the
treasury; and 'that such contract is void,
and such officer will be entitled to no
conversation for anything he may do
under such contract" In mulialy VS..
Mayor, Hun. 662 (and to the same effect
in Doll vs. State, As Ohio State, 445;
Finch vs. Railroad, 81 Cal AT. and Mil
ford VS.. Milford IA Pa St., 610). it is
held that even q newspaper owned by a
member of the board is incapable to
taking a contract for it's advertising.
other cases to the same effect are cited
and Attorney Watson concludes his opin-
ion by saying: Rs.
mo officsr Of the city Of Raleigh can
-