Amador ledger., 1902-02-21
A CORRECTION.

error in our article last week touch
ing the fees for legal services in the
school tax case. We stated that
while the case was started Septem-
bet, 1899, and decided in the superior
court in October following, it was
not until February, 1901, that the
board of supervisors, upon the writ
ten request of the respondent, c.
L. Culbert, county auditor, ratified
the employment of W. ]. McGee as
specal counsel to attend 10 the case
in the supreme court, the matter
being then on appeal before that tri-
bunal. This latter date should have
been February, 1900. We are free
to admit that this apparently trivial
error changes the situation mater
tally. As the first bill for legal ser
vices, amounting to $3.50, was al
lowed in April, 1900, it will be seen
that this claim was presented after
and not before, as our article
stated-the case was appealed. Mr..
McGee says the services rendered by
him and associate counsel in the
higher court up to that time, and
included in the first bill, consisted
in motion to dismiss the appeal on
some technical ground, which mo-
tion was denied. To this extent,
therefore, we are willing to modify
Our article of last week.
When the second bill of $500 was
presented, the supervisors found
themselves in a dilemma, not of their
own creation, but a legacy bequeated
to them by the slipshod methods
adopted by their predecessors on the
board. A difference of opinion arose
as to the scope of the first bill.
The total of $3.50 seemed a large
.um for legal fees in simple man
damus suit. 1t appears so to us,
and we have no doubt the majority
OF our readers will view it in that
light also. This $500 claim lacked
the approval of the district attor-
ney; it was also minus his disap-
proval. They were therefore left to
their own discretion. An examina-
tion of the records failed to elucidate
the matter in the least. The minutes
told the simple fact that four months
after the commencement of the ac-
tion the supervisors ratified the en-
ployment of special counsel. There
was absolutely nothing to show what
the amount of his fee should be in
the event of the case being won or
the case being lost. Is it surpris-
ing that misunderstanding should
result from such a loose way of do.
ing things. A contract involving
the payment of money by the coun-
ty should not only be in writing, but
be definite as to the amount. There
was no reason why it could not have
been made so in this case. When
the last bill for $500, therefore,
came before them for action, the
supervisors were "up against 1T. "
Without anything to guide them ex-
cept individual memories of a discus
sion OF two years ago, the super
visors had to face the issue squarely
by either allowing the bill, OF reject
ing it and thereby assume the re-
sponsibility of a lawsuit against the
county for its collection. Under
these circumstances the supervisors
probably took the wisest course bv
allowing the bill If the fee is
regarded as heavier than would have
been the case had a more careful
policy been adopted at the outset.
the blame must fall upon those who
failed to fix the terms of employment
on definite and certain basis.
We might notice another peculiar
feature of this litigation. The two
fees paid by the supervisors foot up
about twelve per cent of the total
amount involved in the suit. But
this is not all. The suit was to set
tie a dispute between two branches
of the local government. So that
each side was backed by public
money. 1t has been stated that the
school trustees in employing attor-
Deys to represent their side of the
controversy agreed to pay them
$500 if they won the case, and a
small fee-$150 it is said-if they
lost. In one respect, therefore, the
school fathers were wiser than the
county fathers-they did fix the fee
schedule definitely, and also on an
exceedingly liberal scale provided
the battle terminated in their favor
So that if the trustees won, the fees
and expenses on both sides would
have aggregated about $4,000, or
nearly one third of the sum involved.
We cannot assume that the suit was
started with any risk financially on
the part of those who started it.