Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1860-09-07

NhE hAAANAAE ANA aAAA=
AId. Vollentins, from The committee to en-
plov counsel 10 prosecute the citizens claim
Of $4,000 stock in The Memphis and Charles
ton roailroad, read a paper from Messrs. Yer
ger and Harrington, stating that they were
willing 10 undertake the suit with A retainer's
Zee OF sfOOO-ihe balance 70 be agreed upon
on ne conclusion Of their suit. He added that
fhese gentlemea were 50 confident OF success
that they were willing 70 leave the
compensation 10 be agreed upon oy tne Aoaro'
AID. Moliov was opposed 70 The teTE2 pro-
posed. He wanted a fixed sum agreed upon.
He thought that IN THIS matter the city was
sueinE FOR nothing and s~tultifyinE Itself. He
wanted the amount agreed upon befaIehand-
AID. Robinson moved 70 refer the matter Of
compensation. He read from tue ordinance
which requires a reference and a report IRON
the finance committee upon an quesnons m
I volving an appropriation Of money. He thought
the LAWYERS knew the magnitude Of the work
before them, and could now say the price for
] whieh thev would undertake II. He referred
70 The declaration Of Aid. Martin, at the meet
iug. 10 he eject that the members Of the
I on hoard. in selling that stock out, knew they
were giving away $4,000 per anuum tn wealthy
nsbobs. III explained that the board bad
no such information before them when tney
/ acted-thst toe stock Of The company ws'
selling az the time al 50 cents on the dollar
D U.NL LUE II kL.AAHAaA -
a. about $4,000 in favor Of the city. ~
| contended that TIE members Of the board acted
from The best lights before them, and with an
eve single to the best interests OF the city Ne
| concluded with Offering the following resoiu'
ton
Resolusd, That The proposition o. Messrs.
Yercer and Harrington, attorneys, e atteha
the proposed suit 10 recover back the stock
sold TO Tate and others, be referred to th'
finance committee.
Ald. Hughes opposed TIE reference 10 th'
finance committee, He wanted no delay
The Investigation should BE- bad If be had r
pav for II himself. He explained his action
&c vas a member Of the board at the time
but absent from the city when il was effected
and on his return entered his protss. agsins
i, together with 5. Tate, ESQ. He thought I
a great error Of Judgment, and was determines
&c do an In he power 70 have Il into
AID. Martin said be had never intended Z
ead In question the homer or integrity Of AM
member Of the old board in reference % tn
mztter. BE believed they acted honestly, ou
thought their action a crest error OF judgment
He did not mean to say that the board knew
thew were giving away $4,000 per annun U
wealthy nabobs, bat only that tneY rus nav
known Il II they knew b AID late nov
gfafed in his card on the subject. He hai
never assaIied the motives OF any one an
didn't wish to be hunted oWn
kld- Joine moved to amend The report Q
the committee by allowing each attorney SoOO
and in event Of success, 5000. ms va
Objected 70 a. a violation o. the law OF 70
stase. which forbids conditional fees.
Pending q notion 10 lay his resolution .
the table, AID. Robinson again read the ofdi
nance requiring al appropriations and cor
tracts Involving money 70 be reported upon .