Show IS Oi City Does Ioos Sol Not Clearly Mi s Status Upon a ruet request mends made some me time alo ago h by Chairman 11 Of the board of work works City Attorney Stephens yesterday hi opinion up upon upon on time the Involved In the al 01 alleged ot of time the torera former a as claimed l by Councilman Buckle Ind and others because of the banker being I a dIrector ot of time the Trust company which is II lurt for 1 I J Moran and other contractors un on contracts entered Into b by Much parties with the cl city The opinion D of Mr Ir Stephens however hower dul does not seem m to clear ui th the made b by who Mr Ir Dool me In that It doC does not specifically state whether or not he is h or Time The questions 11 a pro iro hounded to time the dt city attorney tilt did not Ilk ask concerning the charge charse that the Trust rr t company lad had furnished Con Contractor tractor Morum wih with funds to enable him to 10 execute his contractu with the ct city prior to his imis drawing itay fhi rite Is t as Colow to your ur inquiry ot of Jan 26 ns as to the ownership of lel tea shares of stok stock of 01 time taim Savings Trust company b by your our chairman ills qualities him holding the olce ot of chairman of oC the borl board for Cor the reason that ouch loh company furnishes bonds to contractors performing work under time the supervision of 01 the Ioard board of 01 public works would say a that s section 25 of lie r Statutes that nu no member or of the boan board of oC public works work shall be directly or t 0 ud In In any contract Into b by them themon on behalf of the city ant amid whether or not time ownership of stock slack itt In this com coni compan pan pany tl disqualifies on one beinG being n a member ur of time the board wholly on the relation of the trust to time the contractor I If tle time relation be such that I it Is a amater mater matter of oC perfect indifference to the trust com company pan whether time the contractor makes or loss loses or what the outcome of lila his contract ma may be then Ihen the ownerS owner ownership ship of oC stock tn in the compan would not hot be a for lor the reason that timbre would be no interest dirt direct director or indirect on the part of the stock stockholders holder holders In time the contract Such would IJ be bethe the caRt case If time the tru trust t Is aho lute lately and ni all question COI coin against any loSs by bv reason of I its It If however hower thE the relation between the trust and the contractor III ha such the company Is 18 interested In the gain In or 10 loss f of the contractor or orIn orin In ho how much may mar be required to be tX cx endel ended to perform Corm time conditions of the contract or pr If time the relation Is such tha that thata I a ma may as 8 to whether or not there may be a 1 liability on tIme the pat part of at the trust company not absolutely provided tor or then In 1 judgment I a stockholder of 01 the company would have hae interest In the contract an indirect such Iud I as woul would disqualify hint from works work on tie the bonn board ot of public The Is wholly one of 01 fact to be determined 1 by the J Jut ut of each particular clie case th time true test In lach each being whether time the Inter Interest tt est or of the stockholder II Is antagonistic to that Ul of oC Ihl time city inasmuch 11 as Mr Ir resolution asking for the removal or of Chairman 1 01 which was introduced at the thelast last o of the city council is II hould to come up tomorrow lt itt the councils un IR special mn It is II ver Very probable the foregoing Ion all also be submitted tt to that lod b by Mr Ir Dool 1001 And it II I fu expected that opinions from othe other legAl lights of oC th time city will I 11 also be presented l and tIme cl mater council thoroughly b by the counci |