The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-09-20

aoirg OF the said work and bond
n the penalty OF ss5n. with the
Apierican surety Company OF New
York MS surety, conditioned for
the faithful carrying out of SAID
contract, which contract ana BOND
nrc In the custody OF your clerk.
1t further appears that nv
meeting held on August 10, 1A0I,
communication was presented from
Thomas N. Kcndler In whicn nc
stnted TINT the work contracted Tor
BIZ him was about completed eM.
cent n few days more to finish
the painting" In which connection
MIR. wiltshire, chairman of the sub
committees. reported that the con-
trnct with Kendler had boon about
gS per cent. completed. whereupon,
on motion of Mr.. Larus. an al
lowance OF $4,000 was ordered 10
he paid Mr.. Render ON account
on his contract, and the chairman
was authorized to sign a warrant
for that amount. to be charged to
construction
1t is stated in said paper. signed
nv Or. Ennion G. Williams, that
after the work had begun 1t was
ascertained that the painting was
being done BY Mr.. Wiltshire. chair
man of the subcommittee. and Ger
. tam Oh tIlG otlSi WIN w ~
r. Atkinson, n member OIL the
Common Council.
Under such state of facts 1t is
your wish apprehend. to know
whether or not under section s23
of the Code of Virginia the mere
subletting of the contract by the
contractor. Render. to g. II. Wilt
shire, member of the Committee on
Relief of the Poor and chairman of
the subcommittee in charge of the
execution of the work of repairs
at the City Home, and the like
subletting OF another part of the
work to w. r. Atkinson. a member
of the Common Council, had the
effect of rendering unlawful the
contract entered into between the
city of Richmond and Thomas n.
kendler, hereinbefore referred to.
Sustntns Mr.. Meredith.
While the determination of this
cueetion is not altogether free
from doubt, yet In view OF the
fact that the statute referred to
is a Limitation upon the free ex-
ercise of the right of contract.
and the principle that every such
provision must be strictly con-
strued and not enlarged beyond it's
literal meaning: and in view of the
further fact, that in a written
opinion rendered by my predeces-
scr. Hon. C. V. Meredith. dated
August Is, 1894. addressed to Col
onel w. z. Cutshaw, City En-
gineer. in response to the follow
Ing inquiry made of him. Can
Councilmen or others connected
with the city government sub
contract to furnish supplies or do
work for the city, held that q
bona fide subcontract does not come
within its tstatute's) scope ] feel
constrained to hold as my prede-
cessor did that said section s23
does not make 1t unlawful for the
officers named therein to be a sub
contractor of a contractor with
the city for work or for the fur
nishing OF supplies to the city,
provided such suhcontract Is bonas
fide and real. and not a mere
device used TO enable commit
teeman or Councilman to become
contractor with the city, and thus
orcumvent the prohibition con-
tanned in the statute.
Act. However Improper.
Second. The paper of DR.. Will
liams. under this head raises the
question as TO the propriety of the
chairman of subcommittee be-
ing subcontractor for work when
1t is his duty to supervise and in
spect the same in behalf OF the
city. Without intending In the
least 10 impugn the honesty or In
tegrity of Mr.. Wiltshire, the sub
chairman. or intimating that the
facts in this case. so far as they
have come under my observation,
justify the conclusion that he has
acted dishonesty. am clearly of
opinion that 1t is not proper for
the chairman of subcommittee
TO become subcontractor for
work under the circumstances
stated. To recognize the proprtety
of such practice would leave
wide open the door for the gross
es, wrong TO tho city.
Third. Under this head, as j lin-
derstand 1t. the paper raises the
question whether The chairman of
? committee can alter the proyis-
ions OF contract without the
knowledge of or consent of the
other members OF the committee.
II is perfectly clear that no
chairman of aFcomrnittee has a
right to alter any provision of
any contract without an order of
The committee, duly authorized in
a legally called and convened
meeting.
Fourth. Under this head is raised
the question whether the chair
man of subcommittee can rec
omrnend 10 the full committee, on
behalf of his subcommittee, the
payment of money on contract in
which he is personally Interested.
when the other members Of his