The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-02-02
'COUNC|LMEN MAY
ACCEPT CITY WORK

&UUUVUIlIvlLJv luIti
ACCEPT CITY WORK
Continued from First Pase.)
bf,er OF the Council or Board Of Alder
men, or any other officer or agent or
any commissioner appointed for the
opening OF streets. or any member Of
a committee constituted or appointed
for tile management equation or cor-
troll OF corporate property of any city.
to he a contractor with the said COR
spnration or its agents. or with such
committee for any work or labor or
5deredF to be done, or goods. wares and
merchandise. or supplies OF any kind
ordered by the said corporation, or by
such committee, to be purchased, or
in any manner. directly or indirectly,
to be Interested in the profits of any
sucl contract.
i Every such contract shall be void,
and the officer agent or member of
such committee making such contract,
shall forfeit to the Commonwealth the
full amount stipulated for thereby. No
officer OF city, who. alone or with
others, is charged with the duty of
i auditing settling or providing by levy
or otherwise for the payment of claims
against such city. shall by contract, d.
rectly or Indirectly, become the owner
of or Interested in any claim against
such city. Every such contract shall b.
void, and If any such claim be paid,
the amount paid with Interest may be
recovered back BY the city within Two
years after payment, by action or mo-
tion In the Circuit or Corporation or
& Hustings Court having Jurisdiction
over said city.
This Is a penal statute. and is. there
fore. to be construed strictly. 1t is not
ito be extended by Implication. and
must be limited in its application 20
cases clearly described by the lam
guage employed. III United States vs..
Aviitberger. Wheat. &C. Chief Jus
tice MARSHALL observes: The rule that
penal laws arc to reconstruct strictly
is. perhaps. not much less old than
construction itself. 1t is founded in the
Tenderness OF the law for tho rights
OF individuals, and on the piain prin-
riplc that the power of punishment is
vested in the legislative, not the judi
& Cial department..
No Constructive OHenscs.
The case must be Il strong one, In
deed, which would Justify court In
departing from this plain meaning OF
words, especially in Il penal act In
X search of an intention which the words
!, themselves do not suggest. TO deter
mine that 81 case Is within the inten-
tion OF statute, It's language must
authorize us to say so.
1t would be dangerous, indeed. to
carry the principle that case which
4 Is within the reason or mischief OF :
statute Is within its provisions 80 far
ms to punish u crime not enumerated
y Sin the statute because 1t is of kindred
character with those which are enum-
Grated.
There can be no constructive offcnses,
and before a man can be punished his
case must be plainly ana unmstak-
ably within the statute Chief Justice
y Fuller, in United States VS.. Lacher. lSs
III. S., ga.
In citing these authorities. JudEe
ivvhittle, in rlle case of Gates u Son co
vs. City of Richmond, l0S Virginia
page 705, says: These and many othe1
cases which could be cited to the sans
effect tend to illustrate the jealous.
with which courts regard any substan
tial departure from this time-teste'
canon of construction. Its violation
Involves n most dangerous innovation
= and places persons accused of crime
the mercy and arbitrary discretion O
the Judge who may chance to presto
in the particular case.
lHGSc hTtdSOiSs til'7 NOois 20 y
opinion that II Wiltshire. the Coun
Gilman and committeeman. was n bon
tide subcontractor With Kendler, VIII
was the real contractor with the cit
of Richmond, and there was no fran
or COLLISION between Wiltshire an,
kendler to enable Wiltshire to becom
IN a contractor with the city of Rich
1nond and thus circumvent the pro
1,ibition contained in tho statute, the
this case does not come within tn
terms of the statute, provided VIII
shire has no interest, directly or indi
4 rectly, in the profits of Renders con
Ii tract with the city.
Il Demurrer Ovcrrulcd.
ssThs matter, however cannot b
a Sreached on the demurrer, as the hi
e charges that Wiltshire has an intercs
in the profits of Renders contrac
S5 The demurrer will be overrulcd for TIN
Eli reason, unless 1t is conceded by paiI
tiffs and made part of the record
that effect, that Wiltshire has no il,
terest in this proiirs of RENDERS cor
tract, the'cofft being of opinion, how
Is ever, that the fact that Wiltshire WI
3 q subcontractor of RENDERS. If lie VIZ
: "a bona tide one, does not give him sue
an interest in the profits of kendler
contract as Will bring him within I'll
2 purv1eW of the statutes prohibitio
1T is but fair to the defendants
state that it was conceded in the arg,
ment by the plaintiffs counsel tn;
there was no charge of actual fra,
against themtintended in the bill ar
a proceedings. but the object of the pr,
ccedings was to get construction
Iss the statute the plaintiffs contender
ss that the Language of the statute w:
broad enough to cover the case of CIV,
n bona fide subcontractor who was
AS Councilman or committeeman I'll
ss COURTS OF opinion. to repeat, that til
construction of the statute is incorre
Isl in the light Of the construction a,
SS5 interpret of penal statutes by o
own Supreme Court of Appeals and t
United states Supreme Court
The demurrer. however, Will be ov,
81 ruled and the case will come on to
heard upon the answers of the /
SS5 PENDANTS. with leave to the planti
to take evidence, II they see fit, on
II question Of what interest. if any, Wi
shire has In the profits of Kendle
contract. The answer Of Wiltshire a
Kendler. denying that Wiltshire wa S
Arl