The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1876-10-27
TIE FLOAT SUIT COSTS.

co or been taken charge OF by ecc0mpIi-
ces, instead Of having been abandoned.
TIE FLOAT SUIT COSTS.
Was the City's Title to the Streets ana
Alleys involved IN the suit3 ~
EDITORS EEws.-Gentlemen: As all Of
US who are residents of this City feel, TO
some extent. an interest In the question
as to whether the city should pay out
| any more money either IS costs, or as At
torney's fees, in what are known as the
BarzIllaI Gray Goat suits, may be par
doned for asking . little space in your
paper for the purpose OF reviewing the re
cent action of the city Council, and also
an opinion of the city attorney, furnI ahed
| by him to the mayor. in relation to the
interest Of the city in these suits. In his
admirable message to the city council
returning the ordinance passed by them
to appropriate $2,346.e6 Of the city's
money for the purpose of paying attnr-
ney's fees in these suits, the mayor shows
conclusively that the city has already
paid more than its share Of the expense
incurred in defending these suits, unless
the title to the streets and alleys In this
/ city was involved by reason OF the city
having been made . defendant therein.
| The mayor, also, IN this message advises
the council co take ADVICE as to whether
the streets and alleys were involved or
not in the suit in which tho city was
made party. We find, however, from
the record OF the proceedings Of the
hof
awaiting time to follow the advice Of the
mayor, Immediately passed an ordinance
Appropriateness Of the funds of the city
for the payment of costs now due, for
which citizens Of Empor1a are RESPONSE
BILE. Mind you, they don't appropriate
this money for the payment of any costs
that are taxed against the city, or which
the city itself ought to pay, but appro-
pirate IL directly tor the benefit Of pri-
vats individuals, thus using the pubic
funds for private gain and for the perso-
nal benefit Of at least two Of the men,
bers Of the council who voted for 1t. If
the title to the streets and alleys In this
city was involved in that suit, then as
shown by the mayors message, the city
ought perhaps to contribute something
more as its share, but If 1t was not
then the payment OF this addi-
tional amount for the purpose of
benefiting a few individuals, would be
an outrage to the community at large.
Doubtless with this view in his mind,
and for the purpose Of determining as to
his duty in relation to vetoing or not this
last ordinance, so as to consistently car
ry out the views expressed by him in his
message, the mayor addressed the follow
ing letter to the city attorney:
EMPoRIA, Oct 18th, 1876
HON. j. j. BUCK, City Atty, Emporia,
Kan. DEAR SIR.--As the mayor OF the
city OF Emporia, Kansas, I respectfully
request your written opinion upon the
following question: In 1872 one Barzil.
lai Gray filed his petition in the District
| Court Of Lyon county, Kansas, against
several individuals and the city OF Empo-
ria 70 recover section 10, township 10,
OF Range IL. Question: Did the fact of
making the city Of Emporia q party de-
PENDANT in that suit bring in question the
| title TO the streets and alleys situated in
the north half sf Emporia tOwnsite.
Please answer at once and obIige.
THos. MoRR1soN, Mayor.
Mr.. Bucks answer to this letter is as
follows:
Answering the above, would say the
statute puts the fee Of the streets and al
legs in the county in trust. Gray's claim
was that he had the legal and equitable
title to SAID section. II his claim was
| true, then no proprietors had even plat
ted the town and the streets and alleys
bad not been dedicated as such, and in
that event the title to the streets and al
leys were involved in the suit in which
| the city was party. Had all the suits
been brought against individuals by lots,
the piaintIff might possibly have been
held to so far have recognized the extent
and outlines Of streets, &C.. as to have
been estOpped from DENYING the existence
OF said streets, but as this point is not in
Volved In your question don't express
| positive opinion.
Hastily yours.
| j. JAY BUCK, City Attorney,
| Emporia Oct. IL, 1876
This opinion, given by the City Attor-
ney ~ an answer to the question put to
him by the Mayor, deserves to be ranked
as an opinion that would have been
worthy OF Capt. Bunsby himself. To the
simple question put to him by the Mayor
as 20 whether the making Of the city Of
Emporia party defendant 20 the suit, Of
itself involved the title to the streets and
alleys In the city, the learned City Attor-
ney makes answer to the effect, that If
Gray owned both the legal snd equitable
title to the section on which the north half
Of the city stands, then and in such case
he( Gray never having plated the streets
and alleys or consented thereto, there
was no dedication to the public. ahd ION.
sequently no title to the streets and alleys
vested in the county in trust for the use
Of the public, and. hence the title to the
streets and alleys was involved in this
suit Knowing that Mr.. Buck is An able
lawyer, 1 can only account for this opin-
ion on the hypothesis that, being . resi-
deEt Of the north half Of the city, he is
personally interested in having the city
pay the personal, liabilities OF some of the
residents OF that part Of the city.
While It lie very true that attorneys Of
ten differ in their opinions upon legal
questions, and differ honestly, yet It does
seem TO me that there can be no chance
for differing - to the proper answer
to the question put by the Mayor
to the City Attorney, among attor.
| neys familiar with our statutes.
The only answer that could be given,
as It seems to ne, to that question. was
and 10 the answer that the making OF the
city party defendant to that suit, did
not in any way involve the question Of the
tile to the parks, streets and alleys stu.
ated in the north halt Of the city, except
las ie would have been involved in the
suit tt the city had mot been made partx.
1 To szpfzfA: II the parties whe plSsted
TIE north Aalf Of the city, owned theland
is the time Of the plating Of it.. the
kmaktng Of the plat ana the reeortiines NJ
te by them, conveyed the title Of siI The
streets, alleys, parks and other public
Tgrouads, 70 the county OF Lyon In trust
for the use Of the public. fGeneral 0tst-