The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1881-04-22
IN RELATION TO THAT BOND
FEE

The four thousand dollar fec allowed
cent meeting, to county attorney Sedg-
wick, for recovering the bonds of the
Kansas City, EmpOria and Southern
railroad, which have been in escrow
with Donnell, Lawson & CO., of Now
York, for the past three wears, is the
theme of pretty general comment, and
there is disposition among many per
sons whom we have heard express them
selves in this connection, to censure the
commissioners for paying what is regard
ed by their censors as an exorbitant price
for services which it is alleged could
have been procured for u considerably
smaller sum. With view
to doing justice to all par
ties concerned. we have taken pains TO
acquaint ourselves with the facts in the
case, which may be stated MS follows:
In the April Of 1879 contract was
made between the county commissioners
and Mr.. Sedgwick, by the terms of
which the former. over the signatures of
Messrs. l.. A. Wood, and l. A. Taylor,
agreed to pay Sedgwick $4,000 and the
actual outlay incurred IN the suit, in the
event of his recovery of the bonds. and
should he fail, he forfeited all claims to
remuneration but Was 10 be Unidentified
for his expcnseS attendant upon the eff
fort. The bonds having been recovered
and produced by Mr.. Sedgwick, during
the late session of the commits
sioners, the fec in question was allowed
in pursuance of the contract which is
meeting with such a generous- measure
Of criticism at the hands Of the public.
While we are free to confess that we
regard the fee larger than the peculiar
nature of the case justified. we are will
ing to give the commissioners and Mr..
Sedgwick the benefit OF their presenta-
tion of the matter. and allow the public,
at least for the present, to determine for
themselves the merits of this issue.
In the first place, 1t is stated by Mr..
Sedgwick, whom we have interviewed
in this relation, that out of the $4,000
named, be paid Donell. Lawson & Co.
PAaOOOt thC aAAOhOA thCsh III
keeping the bonds IN escrow. In addi-
ton TO this there were other expenses
footing up $32500, making the net fee
$2,675, which, considering the amount
involved and the fact that at the time
the contract was made the necessity was
anticipated of conducting the proceed
ings in New York, cannot, it is claimed
by him, be regarded an exorbltant fee
1t is likewise alleged that the commits
sloners laid the case before other mem.
bers Of the bar in this city who demand
ed even larger remuneration for
their services than were paid to Mr..
Sedgwick. The most Objectionable
feature Of the case, in our Judgment,
is the fact that the contract was not Ill
cd, al the time it was made, upon the
commissioners journal, with the other
proceedings, but this omission is ex
planned by the parties thereto upon the
ground that the public knowledge oil
ats existence would have aroused the
intense opposition of parties who were
interested in defeating the recovery OF
the bonds. While we have no reason to
doubt that this was the motive which
operated in the case in point, We regard
it rs eminently proper that the proceed
ings OF public officials be at all times
accessible to the people, to the end thai
they may be fully advised AS to the &C
ton OF their chosen servants.
In conclusion, We have only to say
that, while We are not in sympathy with
those alert individuals who are SC
prompt to recognize in this transaction
the evidences of corruption. we regard
the propriety of fixing the fee at the fig,
ure stated rs decidedly questionable
but have sufficient confidence in Mr.
Sedgwick's justice and integrity to be
lieve that he will make any reasonable
concession that may be demanded at hil
hands by fair-minded public.