Los Angeles daily herald., 1886-10-17
THE FEE GRAB.
The True History Of That
$25,OOO.
A FEW FACTS AND FIGURES.
John F. Swift's Own Acknowledge.
ment-That He Came as a
volunteer"

other parts, and stating just so much
as will give color to lame defense. The
Examiner will again state the specific
facts that make up the record. Let every
date and statement be carefully examined
by the reader so as not to be forgotten,
and then let them be as carefully COM
pared with each and every so-called vim
dication that is put forth.
John f. Swift came into the water suit
as a "volunteer counsel" in February,
1873. In a letter to the Bulletin of March
l, 1877, he says over his own signature
that he "came forward as volunteer
counsel more than four years ago" and
adds: "As for the expense, l have no
claims upon the city except such as the
merits of my services may have on the
public conscience
These facts cannet be successfully de-
MED, nor has Swift or any of his defend
ers made specific denial of the above
facts.
On August %, 1875, when Swift was
boiling Republican candidate for Con-
gress, the San Francisco Post said in an
editorial on his candidacy:
'tThere is one thing, however, that
we had forgotten-his course upon the
water question. He was chairman Of the
committee which reported the water bill
passed at the last session and earnestly
advocated its passage. After the adjourn
ment he volunteered his services to aid
the City Attorney in the suit OF the
water company against the city. and We
believe did good service. Whether he
had any other motive than purely pa
triotic one we do not propose to inquire. F"
Now up to this time, nothing lad ever
teen heard of Swift being employed as
special counsel, and he had never laid
claim to fee,
The first appearance of Mr.. Swift as q
claimant fer fee is February Z, 1876,
four years after he entered the case,
when he induced the Board of Supervis-
ors to pass the following resolution:
Resolution No. 1926 (new series)
Resolved, That the Committee on
Water and Water Supplies be and is
hereby authorized and empowered to en-
ter into a contract with John f. Swift,
ESQ.,, to act as special counsel for this
city and countyin defending suits brought
by the Spring Valley Water Works for
payment of demands and claims for water
furnished and to be furnished for muni.
cipal purposes, and in all litigation to
determine the rights of the city and
county to the free use of water for ell
municipal purposes; conditioned that the
sum of $1,000 shall be paid as retainer
for his services, and that l5 per cent on
the first 100000 saved the city and
county, and 10 per cent upon all other
sums saved, shall be paid for his services
to be rendered in said litigation; provid-
ed, that in no event shall such cOmpen-
sation in the aggregate exceed the sum
of $25, 900; also provided, that no pay
ments shall be made until said contract
is first approved and ratified by the Leg
islature of this State.
This is not denied and cannot be dis
puted.
In accordance with the terms of the
resolution Swift filed written offer to
serveas special counsel, on the same day,
but the offer is undated.
This cannot be denied or controverted.
Swift went to the Legislature, which
was then in session, with his sO.called
scontract," and the Legislature refused
to ratify it, but in lieu of ratification
passed the following Act, which was ap
proved April l, 1876:
Section l. The Board of Supervisors
of San Francisco are hereby authorized
and empowered to allow and order paid
to John f. Swift sum not exceeding
five thousand dollars. for services rem.
dered by said John F. Swift as special
counsel for said city in certain suits at
law between said city and county and
the Spring Valley Water Company.
Sec. 2. The Auditor of said city and
county is hereby authorized and directed
to audit said claim, when so allowed by
said Board of Supervisors, and the Treas
urer of the aforesaid city and county is
hereby authorized and directed to pay
the same out of the general fund of said
city and county of San Francisco, when
so allowed and audited.
SEQ. 3. The amount set forth in Sec.
ton of this act shall be full compensa-
tion for all services rendered or to be ren.
dered by the aforesaid John f. Swift in
the suit or suits set forth in Section l of
this act.
While this bill was under discussion
in the Legislature, City and County At.
torney w. G. Burnett, then and now a
Republican, made written statement at
the request of members Of the San Fran
cisco delegation, setting forth that Swift
had volunteered under the specific pledge
that his services were in no case to be a
charge to the city and county. This is
the record and cannot be denied.
The Board of Supervisors passed an
order authorizing the payment of s., 200
to Swift agreeable to the terms OF the
above Act, and Swift drew the money.
This cannot be denied for the mum.
cipal records show the facts.
The case was finally closed by the Su-
preme Court rendering final judgment in
favor Of the city in July, 1877.
In the Morning Call of March l, 1877,
John 7. Doyle published letter intimat-
ing that Swift was figuring in the litiga.
tion for his own financial benefit, and
Swift in his answer in the Bulletin of the
same date states that he volunteered
and had "no claims upon the city except
such as the merits Of his services may
have on the public conscience"
None of these things can be denied.
But now behold! in the fall of 1877
Swift began an independent canvass for
the Legislature, and in his address to his
friends advised them to ''select one par
ticular man on the Republican ticket to
scratch" in favor Of Swift. The result
was that one of the Republican nomi.
ness was withdrawn, and Swift put in
his place.
He was elected and introduced bill
containing the original resolution passed
by the Board Of Supervisors on February
7, 1876, as well as long preamble glori.
flying himself for the magnitude of his
services in the said suit, and also clause
giving himself $25, 900. This was passed
in 1878, and Swift drew the money.
This cannot be denied.