The record-union., 1899-01-12

having found it printed in the statute
the REQUESTS NUMBER maj Votes 10
was W. II. Larew. District Attorney Of
and also S for Mer reed County W In exam
lining the. matter, he called our attention
in December. 1898. long after the contracts
Journal showed that the repeating Act
had received but twenty votes in the Sen
ate If this were true, as fact, then
the me repeating Act meyer passed and ne anr
merly paid would still be in force. This,
if true, would undoubtedly entitle the
counties to larger sum than II they were
reimbursed only for their OUTLAWS on be-
half of the State or admitted the validity
OF the repeating Act. of 1893. We be-
lieved it to. be our duty to present IN
behalf of the counties that we repre-
scented, all that could possibly be claimed,
and hence presented claims for the full
amount, and IN some cases more than
would be due II the repeating Act never
had passed. leaving the question Of it's
passage to be determined hereafter
This however. was not our ,,s originai
In drafting OUR pleadings we believed 1t
to be necessary to set up specially the
fact. that the repeating Act. of 1888 did not
SO as to raise this question as an issue
to be decided by the court. To the news
paper men this seemed to be the only
closed by the pleadings. If this point is
good, we are frank to say that the
amount the counties would receive would
be very large, and our contingent per-
centage, would also be large, but not ap-
proac ching the figures that have been pub
lished.
We are Informed, however that we are
mistaken on this point, and that the Act
in question did in fact receive twenty-one
votes. If, so, of course the Act Is IN
make falls to the ground. But although
this repeating Act may. be operative, We
still believe that certain counties are en-
titled to be reimbursed in sums of vari-
Gus amounts, and that if they press their
claims, they will receive what is due to
them.
a grave doubt that. the repeating Act. of
1898 had received the necessary number
of votes to make it a law, we have been
maligned by those entirely unfamiliar
being made to rescind our contracts. A
lawyer is placed in a delicate position
duty to prosecute demand because it
may be thought that the lawyer will per-
sonally profit by the litigation, no matter
sse bv hs may cf t fas
sation mentioned in the contracts is con-
tingent. and a county is not subjected to
a dollars expense except in the case OF
success. In this view of the matter, we
think 1T incumbent upon us to say that
it is the duty of the proper authorities of
q county to preserve the county funds and q
to place in the County Treasury all
money that properly and legally ought to
be there If they know or have reason
to believe that there is in the State
Treasury, or anywhere else. any money
that belongs to their county, it is their
duty to see that it is placed in the County
Treasury and to take the proper proceed
preme Court Of the State has so decided.
1t has been said. that for a county to
press a claim of this kind is against pub
lie policy. Why? Almost every county in
the State has presented claims against
the State for the relief of indigents and
aged persons. and have entered into con-
Large sums of money have been col
lected for various counties under such
contracts, and no protest has been raised:
The chief objection that has been nfgea
due them. is that the amount involved Is
large. Even if true, this does not bear
upon the right Of the county to have "
volved is large only in case the repeating
Act Of 1893 did not become a law. Gov
ernor Gage. and we are Informed other
examined the original tally sheet and
have ascertained that the Act did re-
ceive the requisite number of votes, and
we lose this point which has raised such
commotion, and are forced to rely upon
our original grounds.
we nave 6IteTeu III SOOQ ldltlI upOil titC
performance of our task and if we have
been more successful than we first anti
cipated in finding points upon which the
might be established. this should not be
used to our discredit. If we have found
more, money to be due the counties than han
we thought originally was due. this
should not be used as ground to ahro-
gate the contract but rather to adjust
it. We do not. believe that a contract
can he rescinded by only one party with
MP tho consent Of the other and fQ that
others injury. Whenever client desires
to discontinue litigation, or to waive or
release a claim to which he IS entities i
of his clients desires, to act in accord
arce Herewith, whatever the attorneys
own views may pc II IN, his clients tights
ingly, we hold ourselves ready to dis
miss any action that we have brought or
to file waiver OF the claim OF any coun-
county upon it's contract upon proper
compensation being made for the services
which we have already performed and
faith contracts with u.s..
Having a contract that provides for
contingent compensation, II you prevent
us from carrying out our part of the
contract, the fault is yours and not ours,
and you would be responsible to US for
what, under the contract, we might De
the course which you have pursued, in
attempting to secure for the county
money that belongs to it and desire to
surrender such money to the State, you
have but to express that desire to US, and
you will be accorded the same right that
a lawyer extends to any Client, to pay up
as far as you have gone and quit. II
you had made or desire. to make still
such a request, you would have encoun-
tered no difficulty; But it seems that
duties without the assistance of certain
officious citizens who assume to act as
guardians of the public veal
nd an 90
thereof, desires to confer with US upon
the matters embraced in our contracts,
or desires to settle with us and dfscon-
tinue we shall be happy to meet them,
but we would respectfully suggest that
such affairs should be attended to In, a
courteous and business-like manner by
those to whom under the law such mat
ters are entrusted, and in the meantime
we must firmly protest against any action
taken to rescind the contract in which
we have an interest without our consent.
Respectfully submitted.
RODGERS. PATERSON & SLACK;
DEVLIN & DEVLIN.
Supervisor Morrison was the first to
break the awkward pause that follow
ed the reading of the communication.
He asked what course the board could
pursue in prosecuting claim when
the District Attorney had refused to
do so.
Mr. Devlin replied that in such case
the board could employ special counsel.
Mr. Morrison said it seemed to be the
general sentiment that the contract
should be rescinded. The lawyers had
done some work in the premises, and
he would like to know what their fee
would be in case the contract should
be rescinded.
Mr. Devlin said he could not say what
the charge would be until he had con-
suited with his San Francisco asso-
ciates. They would be willing to con-
fer with the board at any time in re-