The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-04
AN ALLEGED GRAFT.
How q Coal Contract Was Given to
Machen Brothers,.

Machen Brothers.
WASHINGTON, June 8. Postmaster
General Payne to-day made public the deci-
sion of Attorney General Knox on which
Mr.. Payne based his award on the coal con-
tract of the department to Machen Bros,
Of this city, of which August w. Machen,
then general superintendent of the free de-
livery system, is a member. The award
was made to that firm as the lowest bidder
during the coal famine last winter, and
newspaper publications at the time charged
that the award to a firm of which one of
the officials Of the department was a MEM
Der was in violation of the statutes. The
decision is dated Jan. Is. 1t is addressed
to the postmaster general, and reads as
follows:
''Sir-I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the sth inst, in
which you ask my opinion as to whether
of coal for the use Of your department I'M
der the following circumstances: On Dec.
80, 1902, sealed proposals were invited for
furnishing the Postoffice Department with
bituminous coal for the remainder of the
fiscal year ending June 30. 1903. An adver-
tisement was placed therefor In three Wash
ington papers and a typewriter copy there
Of was sent to about twenty-five coal deal
ers Four bids were submitted in response
thereto, the lowest being that of Machen
Bros. who proposed to furnish 1900 tons
(the amount probably needed by the depart
ment for the balance of the present fiscal
year, for $5.75. which is $2.55 per ton cheap
er than the next lowest bid. You state the
proposal is properly executed, and that no
question has arisen In this respect: The
fact is presented, however, that the firm of
Machen Bros. is composed of William A.
Machen and August w. Machen, the latter
being superintendent Of free delivery in the
Postoffice Department.
THE LAW IN THE CASE.
1.-THE question thus submitted involves a
construction Of the following sections of the
Revised Statutes:
"'Section 4l2 No person employed in the
Postoffice Department shall become inter-
ested in any contract for carrying the mail,
or act as agent. with or without compensa-
ton, for any contractor person offering
TO become contractor in any business be-
fore the department.; and any person so
offending shall be Immediately dismissed
from Office and shall be liable to pay so
much money as would have been realized
from said contract. to be recovered in an
action of debt. for the use of the Postoffice
Department.
Section 1888. No officer or agent of any
banking or other commercial corporation,
and no member Of any mercantile or trad
ing firm, or person directly or indirectly in
terested in the pecuniary profits or contracts
of such corporation or firm, shall be en-
ployed or shall act as an officer or agent of
the United States for the transaction of
business with such corporation or firm; and
every such officer, agent or member or per-
son so interested who so acts shall be i'm
prisoned not more than two years and fined
not more than 5000 nor less than $780,
I'm my judgment Section ALP does not for
bid you from awarding the contract to the
firm of Machen Bros. If the contract was
one for carrying the mail it would clearly
be within the general prohibition which
forbids any employe Of the Postoffice De-
partment from having any interest In such
a contract. Congress did not see fit how
ever to apply such general prohibition to
every kind of a contract. but limited its
inhibition TO the special kind of contract
above referred to. 1t did, however. prohibit
any employee from acting as agent with or
or persons offering to become a contractor,
in any business before the department.
PARTNER NOT AN AGENT.
THE statute is in derogation Of common
right and is quasi-penal in character II
provides for the immediate dismissal of any
postoffice employe who does act as such
agent and subjects him to a heavy liability.
1t must. therefore. be strictly construed.
Under such construction partner cannot
be held TO be an agent for he is a princi-
pal, at least. In making a joint bid for a
contract. The act is essentially the act OF
principals. Without deciding that a part
ner could not act as the agent, within the
meaning OF the act of Congress-. for the
action of business before your department.
am Of the opinion that the mere jointure
with his partner as principal In q bid for a
contract does not make him such agent,
and Section Az does not apply.
Referring to Section 1888. Revised Stat
utes. you do not state In your letter the ex-
act nature Of Mr., Macheu's dutiex except