The San Francisco call., 1897-10-16
THEY HAVE
EARNED All,
THE MONEY
Attorneys Did Not Agree to
Reach a Waterfront
Finale.
TEXT OF ALL TIE AGREEMENTS.
Forty-Five Thousand Dollars
Is the City's Share Of
the Costs.
SERVICES END In STATE COURTS.
In Their Letters Attorneys Advise
an Appeal to the United
States Courts.
SERVICES End IN STATE COURTS.
In Their Letters Attorneys Advise
an Appeal to the United
States Courts.

OAKLAND, CAL, Oct Is. - 1t has
been generally understood, and many
publications have been made TO the
same effect, that the agreement between
the city of Oak and ana the special attOr-
neys, Messrs. Davis & H Il and Powell
Pringle, to attend TO the water front
suits, provided for the carrying of them TO
the court of final resort. This under
standing has almost brought about a con-
tsoversy, because of the statement re-
cantIy made by Mr.. Davis that il might
not be advisable 10 carry the cases to the
highest court.
The agreements by which the city OBJ
tanned the services of the attorneys and
the com nsatlons paid sufficiently show
hat when The ca es have been finally
passed upon by the State Supre me Court
the duties OF the ATTORNEYS are ended.
The man agreement is as follows:
August 23. 1898
To the City Of Oatlcnd and m. Waterfront
Committee OF the Council Thereof-GENTLEMEN !:
In response to y,u request we omit the
following, after relully considering the Sill
uation, 10 wit:
Proposition OF Davis Hill in the matter of
the case contemplated and the other cases
now pending having arisen cut OF the water
front matters (other than the Cook casel we
su bmit the following:
For all services rendered and TO be rendered
IN all courts State and Federal, in the State of
California, during the fiscal year 1S93-94 two
! hfths OF Sl7 900 i. e $500, 10 be uaid IN he
month OF December 1893. and for Ill serYices
rendered and TO be rendered in said cases
after the hscai year ]S93-94 the remaining
three-ffths OF S17 900, e. $40 200, 10 be paid
In the month OF September, 1894 ALI services
to be diiigent and TO our best ability and ar
peals 10 be taken and perfected may be
necessary and when directed by the proper
authorities.
Appeals by adversary to be diligently and
promptly followed and resisted; no compro-
mise OF this litigation fffecting the wa'e
front title ever to be advised by US. or judg-
ment Icing that final jud icia q determination
alone can ever settle the controversy; proper
and va,id ordinances and proceedings TO be
had at proper times and carried into effect TO
carry out The foregoing.
DAVIS & HILL, Attorneys-at-Law.
In the case OF Cook VS. the Civ OF Oak
land separate agreement Was mad -
5000 to be paid in July, 1898; $3O06 when
appeal to the Circuit Court Is per-
fecteG, or if no appeal b. taken then $4,000
pava ble May 15, 1894. In his case there
l. an agreement TO carry the case TO the
United States Supreme Court for $4,000 as
a separate fee.
On August 25. 1893, two days after the
oriElnal agreement, the following addi-
tlonal proposition was made regard ng
the carrying OF the matter 10 the United
States Supreme Court:
Our proposition last made to stand as to
cases and proceedings IN court sitting in
CaIlfornln. AS to hearings and proceedings
in the supreme Court OF the United states, the
( charge Will be as follows: -Four thousand
dollars Tor each hearing, including argument
there, and $1,000 for each ATTENDANCE there
when the nearing goes over for more than TWO
weeks without our fault or consentupon order
OF the court; but if the hearing goes over not
more than two weeks 10 charge shall be made
for the delay, loss OF time or expenses arising
therefrom. but only the $4,000 for such de-
layed hearing, the delay being not over two
weeks. DAVIS & HILL
Attorneys-Rt-law.
Messrs. Powell and Pringe were re.
tanned at a fee of $4,000. in accordance
with the following agreement:
To Water Front Commit,te, Oakland Cify Conn
Gil - GENTLEMEN: l VIII give my~serVlces as
attorney-At At-Iaw in all the water front II tiga-
ton already begun or which is now coutem-
plated Tor the sum of $40 000 in addition to
what has been provided IN the case of Cook
VS.. City Of Oakland. This offer will include
the litigation IN question IN all the courts of
California, 10 wit: Circuit Court of the
United States. Circuit court Of Appeals
Superior Courts OF County of Alameda
ana Supreme Court OF the State of
California the cases embraced being the
Southern Pacific Company VS.. the city OF Oak
land ct al. broadway wharf case), and a gem
eral suit to quiet title to the whole wa er
front, which we recommend bringing i'm
mediately Gor many reasons) against the
OAKLAND Water Front Company, and Will also
include suit for damages by the Southern Pa
cifc ComDsny.
H. A POWELL authorizes me to make the
same pi oposal Oh his behalf. Yours very
respectfully, EDWARD J. PRINGLE-
The agreement 10 paw these bills was
signed by Councilmen Barstow, Bernard,
Capell, Dalton, Smell and Towle.