The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1894-03-29
What Was the $3.50 For!

and resolutions and advising the Council
about the water works matter, and for
drafting all resolutions and ordinances
for extending the corporate limits, and
to assist the City Solicitor in presenting
the extension matterto the County Com
missioners. and for retainer In case
said latter case went into courts. The
HlIsbor0 Gazette.
Now what was the $2,250 for ?-Ct.
Ezens' Anonymous Circular No. s.
We do not know whether this inquiry
was addressed to the Hillsboro Gazette or
not but we have taken the pains to get
the facts so that no tax payer in Hills
boro may be deceived by such inslnu.
ations. If the writer of the Hillsboro
Gazette article had gone further and
given dates and circumstances, it would
explain itself. Here is true statement
of the matter.
The first act to build water works d
the one afterward held bad by Judge
Evans was pa .sed March 81, 1892, and
Mr.. Robert M. Dtty and Mr.. d. q,
Morrow both vert to Columbus at the
time to secure its passage After the
passage of the act Mr.. Ditty and Mr..
Morrow, who evidently expected EN-
ployment from the Council on account
of their efforts in securing passage OF
bill, assisted the City Solicitor in pre-
pairing a water works ordinance, and al
so an ordinance to extend the village
limits, at that time it being thought best
to extend the limits of the corporation
before proceeding with the water works.
No definite arrangements were made
as to the employment or as to ices, as
will be shown by the minutes OF Council,
until June 22d, 1892, when first ordinance
authorizing annexation was presented
to Council, and then comes the following
formal action, which we take from the
records. son motion D. q. Morrow be
employed to assist the Solicitor in de-
Tending said ordinance, on vote carried"
"R. M. Ditty was suggested as an as
sistsnt to the City Solicitor in defending
said ordinance. H. A. Pavey was also
suggested. On balloting the following
was the result: R. NJ Ditty received 2
votes, H. A. Pavey receiving votes, H.
A. Pavey was declared elected as such
assistant" At that time Mr.. Ditty's
services ceased and bill was presented
by him and Mr.. Morrow for services to
date, as shown by the record in the fol
lowing words "A bill presented by R
M. Ditty and D. Q. Morrow for $3.50 for
assisting City Solicitor in preparing
water works ordinance and an ordinance
to annex contiguous territory to the
village" Mr.. Ditty had performed the
work paid for by Council to him June
ODD, 1892, and is shown by bill it was
simply the preparation of ordinances.
Mr.. Morrow received one half OF the fee
for services rendered to date in the
preparation of the same ordinances, and
at that date commenced his new em.
ployment with Mr.. Pavey.
After this time and before the in
jdnction proceedings against the first
law, Mr.. Morrow and Mr.. Pavey were
employed by resolution in the water
works matters.
After this law, the one passed March
3lst, 1892 was declared invalid, the
present law was passed March 2sth, 1898,
and by another resolution passed April
l4th, 1898 Mr. Morr and Mr.. Pavey
were again employed and under this
employment greater part OF their ser.
vices were rendered.
1t is asked for what was the So ,250
paid to three attorneys? The answer is
readily seen above. For all services
that occurred after June 22d, 1892, up to
that time nothing had been done but to
prepare the water works and annexation
ordinances. After that time came the
Injunction suit under the first act and
every step necessary to be taken under
the new act from the time it was passed
until bill was paid, and any lawyer
familiar with this kind of work can
speak as to how carefully such steps had
to be considered and taken.
The great part of the work done by
the attorneys was under the last law,
as has been said before, which law was
not in existence until nearly year after
Mr.. Ditty's services ceased, and those
services ceased long before the first law
was attacked by the injudction proceed
ing. Mr.. Ditty did not assist in any
thing, either in the two annexation pro.
ceedings or in any water works matters
under either the first or last law except
as above stated was not employed to do
SO, and any services rendered by him
after June 22d, 1892, would not have
been covered by the amount paid him.
No complaint is made as to the amount
paid Mr.. Ditty at that time, and if the
same standard be adopted in ascertain.
ing what the fees should be for services
rendered from that time, June 22d, 1892
until the bill was paid, October 10th,