The record-union., 1899-01-12
CONTRACT IS DECLARED OFF.
SUPERVISORS VOTE TO DO so
~ UNANIMOUSLY.
District Attorney Baker So Ad-
vised-A Long Letter From
the Lawyers Concerned.

Yesterday was the day set for dec1o-
Ing whether or not the Supervisor
would act in accordance with the re-
quest of the Chamber Of Commerce anu
rescind the contract it had MADE VIII.
the law firms of Devlin & Devllh "
this city and Rodgers, Patterson :"
Slack of San Francisco for coLectlhs
SIS, 600 from the State as COMMISSIONS
on taxes.
There was a large number OF repre-
sentative citizens present, all OF "noiA
favored the annulment of the CONTRACT
The Chamber of Commerce was largely
represented, r. D. Stephens, A. ). bfu-
ner and j. o. Coleman appearing as
it's special committee who had present.
ed the chambers resolution 10 the
board. Supervisor Mitchell OF Alanedd
was an interested spectator OF the pro-
ceedings Every member of the boaro
was in his seat.
When Chairman Curtis called up the
subject set for hearing, w. H. DeVhn
submitted a communication from Rog-
ers. Patterson & Slack and Devlln q
Devlin, with whom the contract re-
ferred to had been made.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OPINION.
District Attorney Baker read his
opinion to the board as follows:
My answers to the propositions are
as follows:
"First-That, in my opinion, 1t Wouao
be to the best interests of the taxpay-
ers of Sacramento County to resclno
said contract, because, under the reso-
luton referred to, and heretofore
adopted by your honorable board, the
commissions and charges which are or
might become due from the state OF
California to the county of Sacramento
if SO returned to the county, would
eventually have again to be paid to
the State by its taxpayers, and the
amount of money so paid by your nom
orable board for the collection OF said
commissions and charges to said at
torneys will thus be lost to the tax
payers of Sacramento County.
"Second-In my opinion, the said con-
tract is illegal and void by reason Of
Subdivision 3 of Section 34O6 Of the
Civil Code of the State of California,
in this, that the enforcement of the
said contract will be prejudicial to the
public interests of the citizens of Sac
ramento County, if permitted to stand.
Said subdivision reads as follows:
1.-The descision of a written contract
may be adjudged on the application of
a party aggrieved. When the public
interests would be prejudiced by per-
hitting It to stand
"Third-Under Section %, Subdivi-
sion 16, page 81, of the County Govern
ment Act of 1897 General Laws, 1890,
you have the power to direct and con-
suits to which the county is a party.
You can at any time, in my opinion,
either employ or discharge any attor-
neys so employed to assist the District
Attorney, and in this particular in
stance, having such power, in my opin-
ion, it is your duty to rescind the con-
tract and discharge the attorneys en-
ployed by you under the provisions of
the resolution above set forth"
Supervisor Gillis thought the opinion
did not go far enough. 1t should in
form the board whether or not the
lawyers could come back on the coun-
ty for damages or fees under the con-
tract
WHAT THE LAWYERS SAY.
Clerk Hamilton then read the follow
ing communication submitted by Mr.
Devlin:
To the Board of Supervisors of Sacra-
mento County-Gentlemen: So many mis-
representations have been made concern
ing the contracts with various counties
for the collection of money claimed to be
due to them from the State, arising from
services and OUTLAWS connected with the
assessment, equalization and collection of
taxes that We believe it to be proper to
make this statement.
For many years, almost from the incep-
ton of the State government, the State
considered it to be its duty to divide the
expense of collecting the State and coun-
ty revenue pro rata, the State bearing
its just proportion of the expense. This
course continued for many years, when
officers of the county commissions upon
the amount collected for their services to
the State. This continued to be the rule
Until 1883, when an Act was passed abol-
missions since the County Government
BIZ OF 1888, and up to the time Of the
repeating Act. had been paid into the
County Treasury.
The counties. however. are compelled to
collect the States portion of the revenue
and the expenses incurred by a county
in preparing map books having surveys
made. advertising delinquent property for
sale, and defending cases in court assail-
were borne solely by the county. 1t is
manifestly unfair that county should
bear the whole expense when 1t does not
receive all the benefit and when a pro-
portion of this money is expended for the
benefit of the State. 1t Is also unfair that
one county should bear such expense. and
another county not. The State, as we
thought and still think, had made pro-
vision for the payment of these expenses,
Notwithstanding the repeating Act of 1893
We claim, and still claim, that the State
added percentage to the amounts to
be paid to It by the various counties for
the purpose of meeting it's share of the
expense. either by making a pro rata al
1owance for the expenses incurred by a
county for this service, or by allowing a
principle to run through the various stat
utes that such compensation in such form
should be made or by permitting various
statutes to stand, proper construction
OF which would reimburse the counties
for their OUTLAWS made in behalf of the
State.
Il is evident that upon this theory of
be reimbursed for a. certain sum of money
and another county might receive moth
ing Believing that We could establish
the rights of certain counties to reim-
bursement we undertook for contingent
compensation to collect what might be
due. IL anything. In no case were we to
receive a fixed fee and our compensation
was to be entirely contingent on success.
No one connected with the State. govern
thing, but we were willing to undertake
the task.
At the time that we entered into con-
tracts with various counties: We did not
know that there was any doubt of the
passage of the repeating Act OF lSs3: put