Amador ledger., 1902-02-14
COMMUNICATION.
JACKSON, CAL, Feb. 8, 1902.
To the editor of the Amador Ledger,
Gin.

To the editor of the Amador Ledger,
SIR
In the issue of your paper of
February 7th you do the board of
supervisors and myself an injustice,
and in your article entitled ''Claim for
Legal Services, you did not fully and
fairly publish the true facts.
The first claim presented on April 2,
1900, for $3.50, was for legal services
rendered, expenses incurred, and
money paid associate counsel up to that
date. These services included the trial
OF the case in the superior court, and
some preliminary services in the su-
preme court, and also expenses incurred
in a trip from Jackson to San Fran
cisco. All individually received out
OF this $3.50 was about $3.50. There
after the case went through the su-
preme court covering a period of
nearly two years, and subsequent
bill OF $500 was presented for services
rendered from April 2, 1900, UP to the
decision of the case, to wit, the latter
part OF 1901.
You failed to state in your article
that W. Il. Willis of the law firm of
Freeman q Willis, who were ATTORNEYS
for the school districts, testified before
the board that under the contract they
had the firm of Freeman & Willis
would have received from their clients
the sum of $500 had they won the case.
You also failed to state that the board
of supervisors called in Hon. John f.
Davis and Hon. A. Caminetti, and
asked them if in their Judgment the
charge was fair one, and they both
replied in the affirmative. You also
failed to state that the reason of the
offer on my part to defend other suits
growing out of the same matter free of
charge was because Judge Davis sug-
gested to the board that it was barely
possible another suit might be brought.
and although the attorneys for the
school districts said that the matter
was ended, at the request of the board
L agreed to make no further charges if
there was any further litigation.
You also failed to state that the Dis
trict Attorney was present throughout
the hearing, and that before the board
passed the claim they asked his advice
on the same.
You also failed to state that in ex-
planation of the employment of assist
ant counsel by myself was authorized
so to do by Supervisors Dwyer and
Brinn.
You intimate in your article that
when the first bill was rendered it was
supposed" to be in full, and yet the
bill as published by you shows on it's
face that it was for services and ex-
penses up to that time, to wit, April 3,
1900, as the wording of the bill is-''To
services rendered and expenses in
CURED. " You say, "there is nothing
in the bill to show that it is merely
partial settlement;" 1 submit there is
nothing in the bill to Indicate that it
was to cover future services and ex-
penses. Both bills were fully explained
to the board at the meetings in Decem-
Der, January, and February, and the
board had the latter bill under consid-
Grafton for three months, and under
stood it thoroughly, and knew the bill
was withdrawn in December and jan
uary under the statement that it would
be presented again. The bill was with
drawn by me to avoid its being laid
over at the December and January
meetings, the board being desirous of
further time to consider it.
You say that apparently the same
ground was covered by both claims,
but in this you are mistaken as previ-
ously shown in this communication.
You say that the name of the special
counsel does not appear on the bill, but
1 repeatedly stated his name-Mr. F.
S. Britain, attorney for the Hibernia
Savings and Loan Society of San Fran
cisco-to the board, and, if l mistake
not, in your presence.
Finally you fail to state in explana-
tion of the claim that the litigation in
volved large amount of money, en-
bracing for the three years nearly $40,
600, which was saved to the taxpayers
of the county, and when the case was
in the supreme court 1 agreed with the
supervisors that if the school districts
won the case 1 would make no charge
for my services in the supreme court,
but, if on the other hand, the suit was
decided in favor of the Auditor, would
ask for fair fee.
You Intimate that the warrant was
cashed at once because l was fearful
some one would protest against it's pay
ment, but in answer to this let me say
that il you or any other taxpayer want
to contest the payment at your own ex-
pense and not at the county's l will
freely return the money to the treas
urer so that you may have an oppor-
tunity to do.sO.
Very respectfully yours,