The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1906-03-09

| full acts, and that respondent is
chargeable although not a member
of the board at the time, with such
purpose; that. he is chargeable with
acknowledge and liability of those
who so violated the law by voting for
this payment at the time he did, the
money for that payment having been
withheld as part of the scheme to
foist upon the taxpayers indirectly
what every supervisor must have
known, under the law, could not have
been done directly.
The question is, whether by acting
IN concert with them. il that con-
tention of the people is true, in con-
Guiding the scheme he is to be held as
one of the parties to the scheme,
which he has made possible by his ac-
ostensibly honest purpose evidenced
by the bare vote charged against him
in this case.
That one may be held for that
which he has made possible by his ac-
tion, must be conceded, but whether
the law should hold his act to re-
late back, is very doubtful except it
clearly appear either that such must
have been contemplated by him or
the inference drawn leads to the hon
est conclusion that had he informed
himself, he would not have so act
ed. OF course, respondent was bound
to inform himself about the subject
for his official action and it was his
duty in this instance, to ascertain
whether the thing he voted to have
done was thing the law permitted
to be done. The so-called Extra
work" could not lawfully be con-
trated for, no money could lawfully
he raised by tax or borrowed to pay
for it, but it was done and the con-
tract relied upon to shield the re-
spondent was used as bind, accord
ing to the contention OF the people,
and wasonly considered sacred when
official action was questioned.
Should respondent BE held to re-
spond for doing thing that the pub
lie interest demanded should not have
been done? Should he be held ac-
countable for what others did before
he became a member of the board
and before he acted? Should he
be held because he acted with them
at the elimination OF their wrong
doing? That the money voted to be
paid by the respondent was the mon
ey arising from the sale of bonds,
appears by the record in this case.
The original contract may be con-
ceded to have been lawful in it's
inception, and yet, when it was de-
parted from by the representatives of
the county and the other party to the
contract soon after it's making, by do
ing work in and about the building
that both parties to that contract
must have known could not have
been included within the contract be-
cause the expense thereof and the use
Of the funds to.pay therefor were pro-
hibited by the law The fact that
there was once valid contract for
the expenditure Of this money, when
you come to consider the fact of the
relations existing betN cen the repre-
sentatives of the county and the con-
tractor, the fact as disclosed by the
The contractors evidence. that he did
work in and about the construction
of this building to the amount, If l
remember correctly, of about 900
when you come to consider that, the
fact that there was orce valid con-
tract for the expenditure of this $75,-
10000 voted by the people, loses
it's force. When both parties to the
contract departed from the known
lawful limitations of their rights and
duties therein, neither party can lat
er on be heard to say that for the
purpose of the disposition of the fund,
the contract Is sacred, the fund de-
voted to it by its payment, is by law,
a part from all other funds
and that it could not be in law, con-
sidered as used. The contract made
on August 10, 1908, was not the
whole contract for the work to- be
done by the contractor upon the
courthouse; neither was the fund
arising from the bonds sold consid-
cred as sufficient by either of such
parties, judging from the record in
this case, to pay the1 efor, and the
court will pay but little heed to a
plea that the contract called for this
money and the money was kept for
this contract when the contract was
not considered by either as defin
ing or limiting the duty of the con-
tractor in building the courthouse, or
the obligations of the county to pay
for the work he did.
The sale of the bonds authorized by
the people of this county appears to be
true. There was sale of the bonds
and the money was realized and turned
into the county, and the contractor was
entitled, under the contract, if his con-
tract in this particular had not been
nullifed by reason of his additional
contracts, for the so-called extras
following the making of the original
contract. The respondent was net
member Of the board Of supervisors un-
til sometime in October, 1905, and it
was at the close of the court house en-
tanglement that he voted to pay this
money. Now, should he be held, under
the facts in this case, the same as those
who participated from the beginning or
participated actively in voting for those
things the law prohibitedY l have