Evening star., 1939-02-05
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

chase of school and other building sites
through the activities
'o'es' ~9o'"s' of a purchasing agent
Furehos'n9 was causing residents
Agent of the District consid-
cradle concern so years ago. and as the
lengthy investigation proceeded frequent
editorial comment was made by The Star.
The following appears in the issue of
February S, 1889:
1.-THE Districts agent quasi agent
intermediary assistant to the Commis-
sioner,' cousin by courtesy and conf
Dental friend and adviser by ofdcial
adoption, must go. There is no legal
authority for his employment or en-
gagement' In many instances he has
been entirely unnecessary, in most in
stances unduly expensive.
'1n Mr. Dodge's case and others re-
sembling it the intermediary was known
to represent the District, and his COM
pensation was openly and avowedly
added to the price which the vendor
was willing to take. His services, if any,
were clearly rendered to the District, and
consisted in cutting down, by bargaining,
the vendors price. The vendor, OF
course, would not employ and pay him
for this service, and his compensation
clearly came from the District. In this
class Of cases the question is not whether
the Intermediary cannot bargain more
shrewdly than the Commissioners and
thus earn the money which the District
pays him. The law makes no provision
for his employment and payment, and
throws the task Of bargaining upon the
Commissioners as one Of the services for
which their salaries are paid. If the
mere fact that the Commissioners can
perform their official functions better
through agents than in person justifies
the employment and payment OF pur-
chasing agent in this case, then the
Commissioners might turn over all their
duties to expert agents to be performed
at additional expense to the District and
retain to themselves merely the function
Of drawing salaries as the only one which
somebody else cannot perform better
than they.
TN the police station case the vendor
prior to the Intermediary did not know
that he was selling to the District. The
Intermediary pocketed one-half the SELL
ing commission as agent Of the buyer,
and the profits on a resale to the District
as the buyer himself. The main question
in this case is whether the Districts in
termediary did not, through the law con-
cerning constructive trusts, really buy for
the District though assuming to buy for
himself. In this event his profits belong
to the District and may be recovered. In
other cases where the vendor did not
know he was selling to the District, and
where the Intermediary received COM
mission from the vendor, the question
whether the District has suffered loss de-
pends upon the size Of the commission
paid and the effect that 1t may have had
in enhancing the price to the District.
Undoubtedly in some instances the
act of closing the negotiations OF pur-
chase for the District can be best accom-
plished by some other person than the
Commissioners personally. But their
agent, to keep within the intention of
tne law, muSt serve tueH SIatuAIousAy aS
q friendly act or be satisfied with divid-
ing the ordinary commission with the
sellers agent, and the Commissioners are
in duty bound to see to it that this COM
pensation does not increase the amount
which the District pays. The complaint
against the method Of purchase en-
ployed is not that 1t has resulted in
swelling the prices paid to amounts on
their face excessive, extortionate, and
suggesting a Job but that in the cases
mentioned and in others like them, not
yet thoroughly examined, the District
has paid ascertainable amounts to an
Intermediary, in most cases needlessly
and in all cases without authority Of
law, and that the prices are excessive by
these specific amounts"