The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-09-14
WAS DONE SECRETLY.
The Agreement to Give $4,000 to
Keller & WEIGH
RESULT OF A STAR CHAMBER MEETING

These Secret COaclaves an AnnoVa-
tiOn which Ought Not to be En-
cOuraeed-The Public Has Right
to Know Whats esOinS On.
MAYOR Fellows has an excuse for the
giving of the work of collecting the
waterworks tax to outside attorneys when
it could have been done by the legal
representative of the city, the city at
torney. He says that the matter was
considered by the council before 1t was
acted upon and that the city attorney
advised the council that the tax could
hardly be collected.
The council proceedings, however, do
not show that the matter was ever
considered until the evening it was
passed and there is nothing in the city
clerks Office to indicate that such was
the case. The terms of the contract are
as stated before.
There we're two or three star cham
Der meetings at which the question
of farming out the collection was talked
over but the public will not approve
these secret meetings where matters
which concern the expenditure OF money
or other things of importance are dis
posed of without their knowledge
There have been too many of them
Such things have been done repeatedly
and the public has come to wonder why
Is should be so? Was someone afraid of
discussion and that the public would
protest? Things which will bear the
light of day will not suffer from pub
lie discussion.
City Attorney Bird says that he never
refused TO take the case, that he would
have taken it if asked to do so by the
council, and that he never advised any
one that the tax of 1895 could not be COL
lected, but that he did say that he doubt
ed whether the tax of 1894 could be col
lected.
To a JOURNAL reporter City Attorney
Bird said: al met with the council
men when the question OF collect
ing the tax came up, and told
the mayor and councilmen what
l thought about it. l said that
doubted whether the tax of 1894 could
be collected, but that l thought that the
tax of this year could. The mayor pre-
scented the matter and said that he had
proposition from legal firm in the
city who would undertake to make the
collection for a per cent.
Il told them that if the firm would I'M
dertake the collection of the tax of 1894
and 1895 that they had better accept the
proposition. l said that they had taken
away my help and that l was crowded
with work. l did not refuse to take the
case, and would have taken it if l had
been requested by the council to do so.
Long before that l had done something
toward the collection of the tax l had
notified the city assessor to place the
property on the tax rolls as real estate.
I did what l could to have it placed
there and the county board refused to
allow it TO be put back on the rolls this
year on the advice of the county at
torney. MY Attorney Stafford and l
were diametrically opposed on the ques-
ton
Mayor Fellows said: "The contract
was made with the understanding that
the city is not to be out cent if the tax
is not collected. The suit is not
to be brought in the name of
the city, and the city will pay no costs,
whatever the result Mr. Bird
and Mr.. Isenhart both said that the tax
could not be collected, and on their ad-
vice it was given to the attorneys. The
matter was considered at three different
meetings"
AS above stated, there is no record that
this subject was considered at any coun-
Gil meeting previous to the one at which
the resolution was presented and adopted
without discussion.