Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-11-20

law Oh IotV ptODlDltI1B OHcefS from De-
ing interested in any contract with the
city is not repealed by the law of 1871,
authorizing the mayor and controller to
designate newspapers in which to pub
fish the common council proceedings, and
that where a newspaper owned by one
of the health commissioners of the city
was designated, the latter was incapable
of taking the contract and that a per-
Torrance by him created no valid claim
against the city for compensation See
also Commonwealth v Whitman PIT Pa
| All. (66 Att, $500; City of Brazil " Nc
| Bride. SO Ind. IA; Harrison V CITY of
| Elizabeth, 20 n. j. Law, 591, (57 Att
| 1922.
| 1t is true that with respect to the ques-
ton submitted, it appears from the state
ment of facts that the secretary of State
| had nothing to do with the awarding
of the contract and has nothing what
ever to do with the auditing of the bills
presented against the state on account
of the contract" But the publishing COM
pany in which he held an important Of
flee and of which he is presumably an
active member, necessarily participated
as Il party in the making of the contract
and the department of which he is the
official head, viii necessarily be affected
to a considerable extent in the perform
ance of the same. 1t is not difficult to
discover not merely an apparent but
real conflict of interests. Whitney y
Slayton, 40 Maine, pa Furthermore, the
statute was not intended as simply an
affirmation of principle of the common
law, but as a more comprehensive legis-
1ative rule founded in public policy The
Legislature must be presumed to have
had in contemplation all of the contracts
which might be made by the different
state officers and to have enacted the
statute for the purpose of removing any
temptation ON their part to bestow rec
iproeal benefits upon one another, and
of preventing favoritism, extravaganza,
and fraudulent collision among them
under any circumstances which might
be reasonably anticipated as likely to
arise under different state governments
in the years to follow. Under the stat
ute authorizing the Governor aud Coun-
Gil to make contracts in behalf of the
State for certain State printing, they
are not compelled to award any contract
to the lowest bidder, but may reject
any and all bids which they do not deem
it for the interest of the State TO ac
cept" The secretary of State is made
by the Constitution the recording officer
OF the Governor and Council, and by
Section 46 of Chapter of the Revised
Statutes, it is made his duty 10 purchase
all stationery Required for the use Of the
several departments. If a member of the
executive council should be a bookseller
and stationer, and the secretary of State
be a printer and publisher, one of the
situations probably contemplated by the
Legislature, would exist. aff0rding an
opportunity fer mutual faVaritism. But
it was obviously impracticable to antici-
pate and specify in the statute the great
variety of situations that might arise,
and in order to accomplish the purpose
of the statute and prevent the mischief
designed TO be remedied, the Legislature
was compelled TO declare in general
terms that no State officer should have
a pecuniary interest in "any contract
made in behalf of the State"
1t is a satisfaction TO observe that there
is nothing in the statement Of facts ac-
eompanying the question now before MS,
10 warrant the inference that any wrong
was intended in this instance. and it may
be true that the contract in question was
an advantageous one for the State. but
it is the opinion of the undersigned
justices that it clearly falls within the
prohibition of the statute, and that the
question proposed must accordingly be
answered in the affirmative.
Oct 30 1911
VIM p. WHITEHOUSE,
ALBERT r. SAVAGE,
A N. SPEAR,
LESLIE c. CORNISH.
ARNO w. KING,
GEO. r. BIRD
GEORGE +. HALEY,
GEORGE NJ HANSON.