Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-10-11
FILLS Of THE CITY
WHEN ILLEGALLY CONTRACTED
SUBJECT OF AN OPINION.
ATTORNEY PoLLARD's VIEW.
- 1naiv1dun1., Members of coun-
ell cannot SCH to the city-But
Holding stock in a CORPORATION
Does Not Ancct Their Rights.

Tho city cannot buy supplies from per-
ec,,. rho are members either Of the Com
r,n,, sf,ounci, or the Board of Aldermen.
Such is the decision OF City ATTORNEY II
r. Pollard, to whom the question was re-
ferred two weeks ago by the CouncA
Committee on Police, Elections ana
Schools. It was rendered yesterday.
rrhe matter was brought up at the re-
cent meeting of the committee by Aioef-
man Al. Fill Seay, who objected 20 me
payment of two bills, one for ~ cents 10
Mr.. J. NJ. Blanks, a member OF the COM
mon Council from Lee Ward. ana the
other for $3.50 to the Winston Electro
Construction Company, in which Mr. T.
r. Winston, a member also from Lee
Ward, is interested.
Mr.. Pollard is of opinion that the
Blanks bill cannot legally be paid, out
saws there is no reason why the other
bill should not be paid.
A SIMILAR CASE.
It is very likely that Mr.. Pollard will
shortly be called upon to decide a qtes-
ton along the same line, which viii carry
the matter further than members of the
civ council The question as to the right
of any of the members of any of the
boards of the city to furnish supplies TO
the city At the meeting of the commit
tee on Health Thursday a bill IN favor
Of J.. C. Dickerson, the harness dealer.
who is president of the school board OF
the city, was ordered to be pa1d after
considerable discussion Now, arises the
question, Was the bill properly paid, and
it is expected that this phase OF the
matter will be referred for an official opin-
ion also.
TEXT OF OPINION.
The opinion as to Messrs. Blanks and
Winston is as follows:
/. 1t is clear that the bill OF j. NJ
Blanks against the city tor forty cents
was illegally contracted, and cannot be
legally paid by your order.
AS to the bill of the Winston Electric
Construction Company Ga corporation)
against the city of Richmond for
$3.50, I have to say that a kindred ques-
ton has been heretofore submitted to me
and determined by an opinion, dated Dec
I. 1900. when it was held that the mere
fact that q councilman owns stock IN a
corporation, does not render illegal con-
tract made between the city and such
corporation.
In the case now submitted, it IS as
sured that Mr.. Winston, a member of the
council, is not only a stockholder In the
Winston Electric Construction Company,
but is also president of the company L
am of opinion, however, that this can
not affect the question, and. adher1ns.
after careful consideration of the cues
ton, to my former conclusion, I am of
opinion that the contract between the
winston Electric Construction Company
and the city of Richmond is not void
under the statute above quoted, by rea-
son of the fact that Mr.. Charles X WIN
ston (member of counciD is president OF
said company and also stockholder there
in.
certainly it cannot be said that Mr..
Winston is directly interested in the
nrotits of a contract made with cor
noration whereof he is president and IN
which he is a stakeholder. and II the con-
teution could be made at all, that there
is an interest, it must be an Indirect IN
terest which is likewise prohibited by the
statute. I do not think, however, that the
"indirect interest" here prohibited
is that what might come through
the N dunn of official connec-
ton, but that which might come through
an agent or fgure-head, containing nor
in fact which might come through al
agent contracting, but for another WHO
holds the position of councilman
a
practically impossible for the business OF
a large corporation like the city OF
Richmond to be administered
To illustrate: If any member OF the CITY
council held single share OF stock IN d
hank. that bank could not receive on
deposit a single dollar of the city's money.
IF a member of the city council held
single share of stock in an insurance
company, such company could not insure
a piece OF property belonging TO the CITY
If a member of the city council held a
single share of stock in a railway COM
many such railway company could not
transport for or sell to the city single
ton of coal, or transport any other prop
erty for it,
If the law above quoted was intended to
have such a radical effect. the legislature
would, doubtless, have said so mora
n.ainly than it has in this statute.
Very respectfully.
II. r. POLLARD,
CITY Attorney.