The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1901-06-10
SURETY
BOND
ARGUED
Excigeneies Of Legal Practice put a
Salem Lawyer on Record Against
Himself.

himoNlAs
In the Arguments before the Circuit
CourtSatuTday in the case Of the city ",
the BaltimoreBond Co. to collect the$jOO
forfeited bond for non.fulilment Of hi
contract with the city, the surety com
pany rested its case on two propositions,
1st. That the City had no charte
authority to enter into any such con
tract at all.
%. That the City had no charter
authority 10 demand any such bond.
The exigencies Of the practice Of tn,
law frequently bring to pass some anus
ing, and even mystiiying, antiquities
and while they are wrought in the bes
Of faith and good service, thew are non
the less lsughable, ss showing tc
what divergent extremes the Ad
Vocate must 90 IN the prosecution o
analogous cases. A matter in poin
arose when w. II. Holmes for the City
Of Salem and q. g. Bingham for the Fl
deity & Deposit Co. of Baltimore, argued
the demurrer filed by MT. Bingham tc
the complaint submitted in the suit tc
recover on the forfeited bond Of Frank
AnGon.
When the city council had the matter
Of granting the electric and steam heat
ing franchise TO Arson, last year, there
was no undue haste INDUCED in. and
numerous meeting we're held, both by
the council and itS committees, and a
number OF citizens we're taken into the
confidence Of the authorities, with a
view to 90 framing the franchise as to
bring to the municipality every sdysn.
taEe and compensation that might legal
ly and safely inure to il, from the va
liable privileges it was about TO confer
on Ansou and bis associates, And
among those who appeared before the
council az an interested adviser in this
relation, was Mr.. Bingham, who now
represents the Fidelity 4 Deposit Co.,
Of Baltimore, the surety Of F. h. Anson,
and who resists the sction Of the city to.
recover the sum forfeited by them when
Anson abandoned and ignored his con
tract with the city. Mr. Bingham was
earnest 10 the counsel he rendered the
city At that time so earnest that he put
his adVice in composite form; in fact he
presented bic suggestions in tyPe.Writ.
ten Shays aud there was no mistskinE
their meaning nor importance.
He includsi, in his category Of amend.
ments to the ordinance then under con.
sidsratlon, THE VERY SECTION
THAT DEMANDS THE BOND He
Is now SO CONSCIENTIoUSLY
FIGHTING and when that bond was
subsequently furnished by Anson and
the surety company, and it was sub.
mittsd 10 Mr.. Binham by one OF the
city officers, He ASSERTED, IN A
NON.PROFESSIONAL WAY THAT
THE BOND Wa A GOOD ONE, AND
RECOVERABLE. He never once
invoked the prohibition Of the city
charter against the business then under
way, nor did he Iugges. any doubt Of the
regularity OF the proceedings then being
taken, but rather by his apparent in.
terest in the matter, confirmed the
authority and wisdom Of the council in
all il did At that time.
Now, on Saturday last, he contended,
n open court, THAT THE CITY OF
SALEM WITHOUT A VESTIGE OF
CHARTER AUTHORITY FOR EN-.
TERING INTO ANY SUCH con.
TRACT: THAT THE CITY WAS
EQUALLY POWERLESs TO DE-
HAND SUCH A BOND, FOR WANT
OF EXPRESSED JUSTIFICATION IN
THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE NUM-
CIPALITY: These we're the bases OF
his argument and he fought for them
strongly and intslligently as became
lawyer doing his best for his client: But
the question that arises in the mind Of
the lsymen is, WAS Mr.. BINGHAM
RIGHT IN HIS RREMIsE LAST
YEAR, OR Is HE RIGHT THIS
YEAR,"
The city had the same authority to
enter into this contract with +. r. Anson
iu the year 1900, that it had to enter
into = similar contract with the same
man and his associates in the year 1898,
and Mr.. Bingham drew the contract
ordinance in the earlier instance or
helped TO frame it.
So it all goes 10 show that ones
opinions vary exceedingly whsn it is
known whose OK is about TO be gored