Clearwater Republican. [volume] (Orofino, Idaho) 1912-1922, 1915-11-12
ra services. (ll Cyc. 249.)

sec. 255, Kew. Codes, provides (.
Members of the legislature, State,
county, city, district and precinct ofii-
GERS, must not be interested in any
contract made by them in their official
capacity, or by any body or board of
which they are members.
Even though respondent in the
case at bar did not enter into the con-
tract in question in his official capac-
ity, but as private citizen, such con-
tract is nevertheless void; and the
compensation paid Hereunder is recov-
cradle to the county.
'The acceptance by public officer
of private employment which conflicts
with his public duties is sufficient to
make such contract void as against
public policy. An officials duty is
to give to the public service the full
benefit of a disinterested judgment
and the utmost fidelity. Any agree
ment or understanding by which his
judgment or duty conflicts with his
private interest is corrupting in it's
tendency. When an individual accepts
an Office it is with the implied under
standing that his entire time and at
tention, if necessary, shall be given
to the duties of that office; and when
he finds it inconvenient to devote his
time, attention and best efforts to the
duties of his office, there is one means
available to him-to resign. There is
no more pernicious influence than that
brought about by public officials en-
tering into contracts between them
selves by virtue of which contracts the
emoluments of their offices are in
creased and the time and attention
which the law demands they shall
give to the performance of the duties
of their offices are given to the per-
formance Of the duties required of
them under such contracts. Justice,
morality and public policy unite in
condemning such contracts, and no
court will tolerate any suit for their
enforcement. The fact that the accept
ance of such employment was without
fraud and prejudice to the interest of
the taxpayer is immaterial. Even in
the absence of statutory provision,
such contract is void; as public
official cannot make contract to
regulate his official conduct by consid-
Grafton of private benefit to himself.
(See Ruling Case Law, vol. 6, PIP.
739. 740)
"It would matter not if, in the
case at bar, the respondent in fact
performed this work on Sundays or
evenings and thus made his private
interests subservient to his public
duties. 1t is the relation that the law
condemns and not the results. 1t
might be that in this particular case
public duty triumphed in the struggle
with private interest, but such might
not be the case again or with another
officer; and the policy of the law is
not to increase temptations or multi.
ply opportunities for malfeasance ir
Office.
1--WE are of the opinion that the
constitutional and statutory provisions
above quoted bear us out in holding
that the contract entered into between
the respondent and the board of county
commissioners of Clearwater count,
was void alb initio, and of no fore,
and effect.
1T therefore follows, from wha
has been said, that the respondent wal
not guilty of charging and collectin,
illegal fees for services rendered il
his official capacity and is not subject
to removal under sec. 7459, Rev
Codes, but that he entered into an un
lawful and invalid contract; and tha
an appeal from the action of the poart
Of county commissioners in lettin,
said contract might have been success
fully prosecuted, or an action main
tained for the recovery of moneys il
legally paid to the respondent there
under. No member of the legislature
state, county, city, district or precinc
officer can legally enter into any con
tract. or be interested in the same di
rectly or indirectly, either in thei
! official or individual capacity, wit
, the state, county, city, district or pre-
, cinct. or with any body or board o
which they are members; and all sue
. contracts are void, and any money
: paid hereunder may be recovered in
: proper action.