The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-11-10
DIFFERENT VIEWS.
Insurgent Members School
Board on DOster Opinion.
They Interpret 1t as Being
Against President SwendsOn.
GLEED STATES CASE.
The Factions on the Board
Further Apart Than Ever.
Chas. Holiday on Practice OF
Letting Contracts to Members.

At the close of the stormy Monday
evening meeting there seemed to be
general disposition on the part of both
regular and insurgent members to
patch up differences, but the facts OF
the case were that the "scrappers' of
the school board were really too weary
to indulge in further battle of words.
Now there seems but little DISPOSE
| ton to compromise and settle the
tangle in a peaceful manner. There is
some talk of letting the supreme court
decide as to the merits of the Spencer
and Keesee case.
The real bone of contention at pres
ent seems to be in respect to whether
or not the $129.50 which has been paid
out in Lawyers fees should be paid by
the board or by President S. A. SWend-
son personally.
1.-THE action of Mr.. Swendson in this
matter" said J. Willis Gleed, mem
Der of the board, today, shows gross
lack of common or else of moral
sense
Mr.. Gleed then went on to state the
case as follows:
j. w. GIeed States Case.
1.-THE board had advertised for BIDS
on a school building. Spencer was the
| lowest bidder No criticism has been
made in regard to advertising or the
! letting of the bid. Spencer entered
| into a contract to build the building
to the satisfaction of the architect for
| a lump sum of money, and ne was 10
be paid in installments.
| HE proceeded to build the building
and it is admitted that the work has
been done strictly in accordance with
the contract and to the satisfaction or
the architect appointed by the board.
An installment of payment became due
according to the terms of the contract
| and its payment was resisted solely on
| the ground that Spencer had bought
| some cut stone from Mr.. Cuthbert VINO
| happened to be member of the
board PAYMENT was resisted by Mr..
Swendson and certain other members
of the board but the bill was ordered
| paid.
| Mr. Swendson was told by Judge
| Carver and myself that there existed
no legal or moral defense to the claim;
that Spencer had agreed to build d
| building for so much money. If he had
| paid too much for this stone the board
| didn't lose it; if he paid a small price
! for the stone the boards obligation
| remained the same
1.-THE board ordered the claim paid.
| Swendson declined to sign the check.
1t now appears that Swendson, on his
| own responsibility applied to Judge
Frank Doster. formerly. chief justice,
| for an opinion, and 1t now turns out
| that that opinion conceded with the
! opinion given Mr. Swendson by Judge
Carver and by myself He said the
claim must be paid.
I'm spite of this opinion Mr.. Swend-
son still declined to sign the check and
suit was brought against him by Mr..
| Spencer to compel him to sign the
| check. The case was tried and Judge
| Dana decided that the claim was alb
| solutely Just and legal and directed
that 1t be paid.
1.-THE existence of this opinion of Dos
ter was not known to Judge Carver or
myself until a bill for it was presented.
and contents of the opinion was not
| known until after the last meeting.
Now Mr.. Swendson wants the board
to pay him the expense which he has
incurred for violating the order Of the
board, and for going contrary to Judge
| Doster's opinion and for doing an
Illegal act In this whole matter Mr..
| Swendson has done a great wrong:
First. to Mr.. Spencer.
TT is grossly unjust to compel man
with a claim legally and morally valid
| to go to the expense of hiring an at
torney to sue for the same A great
wrong has been done Mr.. Cuthbert who
did not sell this stone to the board but
sold it to Mr.. Spencer and who has
been adjudged by Judge Dana to have
been entirely in the right.
Great wrong has been done to the
people because suspicion has been stir
red In their minds where there was
not the remotest degree of wrong doing
on the part of anybody
matter shows a gross lack of common
or else of moral sense; and by his dis
| obedience to the order of the board he
has forfeited all right to remain presi
| dent What the board will do can
not say.
ct have not myself seen Judge Dos
| ter's opinion I take Judge Garver's
| report of it."
! The Doster Opinion.
The following is taken from the
opinion Of Judge Frank Doster, for
| which Mr.. Swendson asked, and shows
that Judge Doster is of the belief that
| it is not legal to purchase supplies
from a member of the board of edu-
| cation:
1.-The first of the questions, without
setting it out at length. in substance is
whether the board of education may
/ enter into a contract with one of its
own members for the erection of
! building or the furnishing of materials
or supplies, or the performance of la
| Dor necessary in the conduct of the
public business transacted by the
board, and. if not. whether member
| of the board may lawfully take and
perform a sub-contract in the doing
| of any work for the city under a pri-
mary contractor who is not a member
| of board, aud thus Indirectly accom-
plish what is directly prohibited?
| Il feel quite sure that both these
questions should be answered in the
| negative.
THE general rule is that all persons
who stand in a Judiciary relation to
another or others can not enter into
| contracts as individuals with them
selves as trustees, and that public
official is a trustee for the public is in
law beyond all question.
"A second question asked by you is,
| whether a school levy having been
made for a particular purpose. which
| levy was within the lega; per cent al
lowed, a warrant for payment out of
the fund for which the levy was made
| can be legally drawn before the levy
fhaS been collected and made available