The state-line herald. (North Lemmon, Adams County, N.D.) 1907-1912, 1911-11-17

which says that no man can serve
two masters. The record shows
that the Secretary of the Light
Company, who is a holder of cap
ital stock in the corporation, is a
director Of the school board and
signed the contract for heat as
secretary and manager of the
Light Company and while a
member of the board of educa-
ton and afterwards even moved
for the allowance out of the
funds of the school district of
accounts under said contract
while he was secretary and man.
ager of the Light Company.
How an officer can protect the
interests of the taxpayers and
protect the funds of the school
district when he is at the time a
creditor of the district and seek
ing payment out of those funds
of an account which he is direct
ly interested in is hard to under
stand. When he moved for the
payment of these bills, did he
expect the district of which he
was an of to get the benefit, or
did he expect the Light Co. of
which he was the secretary and
manager, to get the benefit in
the transaction. When he signed
and secured this contract for five
years, as secretary and manager
of the light company, and at the
same time a director in the
school district, whom did he ex-
pect to profit under the contract,
the district, or the light company
On the other hand, as a director
of the school district it was his
legal and moral duty to protect
the district and preserve its
funds as far as possible. On the
other hand, as secretary and
manager of the Light Company
and a stockholder therein, it was
his duty to get profitable business
for the light company. Whose
interest did he serve when he
signed the contract for the Light
Company and as a director of the
board affirmed it? Let the pa
tron answer. Is this a technical
violation in the mind of the writ
er of the article or is it a viola
ton of a principal intended to
safeguard every interest of the
district. Is not the law based
upon reason and principle?
Whatever is the out come OF
the litigation the fact still re.
mains that no officer of a school,
district can nor should be per
mitted to contract with himself.
1t is wrong on principle and JUS
tice, no matter how honest the
official may be when viewed on
the light of adverse interests he
represents and:
The writer maintains that the
system is perniclous and should
be abolished as contrary to law
and principle and men kept on
the board who represent no other
interests save the interests of
the school district, whose interest
they are elected to serve.
1t is a fundamental principle
that the same person cannot act
for himself, and at the same time
with respect to the same matter,
as the agent for another, whose
interest might be in conflict with
his. The two relations would at
once involve a conflict between
interest and duty. The fact that
the officer is an honorable man
and that the services were meri-
torious and beneficial to the dis
trict cannot alter the principle;
for is it not human nature for a
man to look after his own inter-
ests first, last and all the time?
The district under said contract
has spent in excess of $500 for
heat during the past year besides
paying a janitor at the rate OF
$500 per month during the
winter time. This is about one
eleventh of all the moneys receiv-