Evening star., 1926-06-15
j. S. OFFICIAL HELD
TOBE LIABLE IN SUIT
Supreme Court Rules They
May Be Sued for Damages
if Powers Exceeded.
BY the Consolidated Press.

BY the Consolidated Press,
officers of TIE Government, acting
ostensibly for the Government. may
be sued for exceeding their authority
and they then becoEle personally Ia
HE in damages arising out OF such
exercise of power beyond their author
ity. Also, the Government may offer
one-Sided contract to 4 private IN
dividual and there is no recourse TO
the latter if he signs such contract
These two important principles of
law have just been affirmed in posi-
tive terms by the Supreme Court Of
The United States in one of the large
group of decisions handed down at
the end of the regular term.
The first principle bears no relation
10 the second, though they happen
both TO be included in the suit which
the War Department won against Ed
ward r. Goltra of St Louis, Mo. who
sought to restrain the Government
from taking away from him harEeS
he had leased from the Governments
Would Affect Dry Agents.
Nor will the effect of the two
principles he felt particularly IN
eases like the Goltr2 barge suit
which was uni~+'% Rather is 1t
likely that the principle relat-
ing to the personal responsibility Of
the individual who happens to be a
Government officer Will be referred
to time nd again in connection with
the acts ii Federal officers attempt
ing 10 tf.torCe the Nolstead law.
If a prohibition agent. for instance.
discovers liquor held illegally ANA
destroys the liquor Sumnartly, in
stead of taking it before the court,
as required hy section % of the Vol
stead act. the agent may be sued
personally for his illegal act. 1t al
ready has been provided that if
prohibition agent exercises his au-
thority with untue severity i'll exc
cution of a sear h warrant he may
be fined 81 1000 - imprisoned one
year on the othA. hand. an agent
of the Government may use all the
power necessary to execute Il specih-
cally authorized. power,
The point developed in the Supreme
Court decision Just announced Is that
Government officers must be careful
not To act rashly in behalf OF the
Governments Mr.. Gol.ra contended
the boats were taken Ttom him by
Army officers without lsotice on the
day of seizure
IreSpaSS iS Banned.
Neither they Uhe otIicersl nor the
Government they represent, says
Chief Justice Taft who delivered the
opinion, could trespass upon the
property of another. and Il is we'll
settled that they may be stayed IN
their unlawful proceeding l:v a court
If competent jurisdiction ev-n though
the United States, for whom they may
profess to act. is not . part! and can
not be made one. BY reason of their
!llegality. their acts or threatened
acts are personal and derive no official
justification from their dnina them IN
asserted agency for the Cove rnment'
The Circuit Court y 0ul, lave been
reversed If the issue had tested on
that point alone As Il was the SUI
preme Court decided the Ii after III
favor of the Government on the
ground that the contract originally
entered into gave the War Depart
menC the right to say whether the
contract was being fulfilled and there
could he no quarrel. the court said,
with the exercise by the War Depart
ment of the discretionary power OF
its experts.
The case leaves no doub'.' wrote
Mr.. Taft. that such q provision for
termination of a contract Is valid, un-
less there is an absence of good faith
III the exercise of the judgm@ @nt. Here
nothing of the kind is shoNn. SuCn
Il stipulation may be harsh one or
an unwiSe one. hui it IS valid and
binding if entered into. i is often H.
lustrated in Government contracts in
which the determination q tie it1l
issue under the contract l. lat u
the decision of the Government Off.
GER,
Good Faith an Issue.
Even if this We're a stipulation
between private individuals judgment
of one of the parties on such an is.
sue would be in the absence of bad
faith conclusive. There are many
cases where the contract makes the
sat sfaCtion Of one Of the parties in
respect to compliance the condition
precedent to futilment and good faith
is all that is required to Justify re-
lection of work or product rendered ."
IN this particular case the War
Department itself by such restrictions
placed on the rates that could be
charged on the Mississippi for carry
ing freight made il impossible, ac.
rordng TO Mr. Goitra to operate the
harges, and they We're tied UP pend
ing his argument with the War De
rartmont, which in turn seized the
l"ats for non-uSe.
This is typical of the difficulties en-
roOntered by business men in dealing
with the Government, and one of the
big Fandicaps the Shipping Board suf-
Tered from making contracts for Gov
errment ships. Recently. however
the courts held that the Emergency
Fleet Corporation could be sued with
out its consent. and this privilege il
IS believed will ultimately have to he
specified before Government bureaus
can make purchases and enter into
mutually advantageous contracts with
private firms.
copyright. 1896