The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-11-11
Chicago Grain Market
TO PAY OR NOT TO PAY.
Supreme Court May Yet Pass on
school Board Contracts.

The school board controversy goes
steadily, on, and the interest which the |
citizens of Topeka are showing IN the
squa bible is marked.
Today a notice has been filed with
the clerk of the board by Spencer &
Keesee, the contractors, who are erect
ing the Van Buren, school building at
the corner of Sixteenth and Van Buren,
streets, to the effect that if by We'd
nesday next the last two monthly esti-
mates for work done on the building
have not been paid, the job will be
thrown up, due to the failure of the
board to fulfill its contract.
I am two-thirdS through with the
building said Frank Spencer, "and
have nearly all my material on hand
to complete the structure.
My judgment would be that in case
the school board fails to pay the esti-
mates and it becomes necessary for US
to stop the work on the building, I
would be entitled to substantial dam
ages on account of laying my men off.
Il am glad to see the regular mem
bers of the board get in print said
George H. Smith today. 1T shows they
are worried. We are not at all wor-
ried.
| 1.-The supreme court would, I believe
give us decision against Spencer &
Keesee. Let them go ahead and stop
| the work on the Van Buren, building.
| William Macferran, a former member
| of the board, who is strong lnSur-
gent sympathizer, said: Let the in
| surgents make a great roar. 1t is the
only way to put a stop to letting con-
| tracts to board members. When L was
| on the board we tried to stop the prac-
| tice but to no avail. Four members
| of the board were supplying materials
| to the board Some men get on the
board on purpose to sell something.
| The insurgents state that 1t is not
P u
| out of any money, but the question that
they want definitely settled is whether
! or not the board of education mas
right to contract with members either
directly or indirectly where they ap-
| proved the fulfillment of its own con-
tract and accept work done by them
selves.
Judge Frank Doster in referring to
the Spencer & Keesee case remarks
that he considers it illegal for the board
to contract directly or indirectly with
members, but he goes on TO state tnat
| payment of work done can be made by
the board, not in fu1fllment OF the con-
tract but as an equitable obl1gauoh'
| Here is what Judge DoSter HdS "
say on the subject:
IT do not regard the question wheth-
er there is any statute proh1blt1Ve OF
contracts of the kind in question as
of any moment in reaching concIu-
sion because in my Judgment con-
tracts by public officers for the per-
Torrance of work or the furnishing OF
materials for the public represented by
them are, az --tter of common law
contrary to public policy and therefore
illegal.
hibit such kind of engagements. Stat
\ utes prohibitive of such contracts are
merely legislative expressions OF the
| ! common law of public policy.
IT think all these considerations
| mentioned apply as we'll as TO a SUP
| contractor as a primary contractor
| ! His work in the finality is done Tor th'
1 hoard. It's conformity to requirementi
/ must be passed on by the board
Il done on a building he must be undel
II the superintendence of the board or IL
Il supervising architect; 49,
II IA question subsidiary to the on
II above may arise, viz, If services nav
II heen rendered or material furnishes
nv a member of the board, either as
II contractor or subcontractor, can pay
III r7ent be lawfully made?
INV Judgment is that it can be made
III but in such case it could not be mad
III in fuifiIlment of the contract, but onf
III in fulfllment of that equitable obl1ga
II tion to pay which would arise put o
II the receipt and retention of tAlng o
Ill Ing >;