Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-04

wards where there were candidates up
for reelection The retainer fee, ac-
cording to the contract is $50. but those
who are using the contract are inter-
preting 1t to voters to mean that the
firm is to be paid $50 for each and
every case. They are also using the
contract to mean that the firm of at
torneys is to receive $3.50 for each and
every appeal from paving asses sments,
made to the district court
'"The fact about the contract how
ever, is not as the Interpretation is
made by the anti administration work.
ers. Ihe firm In question was employ
ed on january %, 1904. before 1T was
known how many paving cases there
would be, to assist the city solicitor in
the presentation for trial and trial of
one OF the special assessment APP
peals. The case was not des
ignated. as it was not known
then which would he used as
the test case. The total amount of
recovery, according to the contract, is
$3.50, and not seventeen times $3.50, as
some Of the workers are advocating
City Solicitor Van Law, who is not in
terested in any one candidates fight
over another, says he will stake his
tract, which he drew He stated to
the council at the time 1t authorized
the Judiciary committee to employ
counsel, that after the trial Of one case
he thought he would be able to handle
the others alone, without extra expense
to the city"
If Mr.. Van Law cannot tell how
much this firm is to be paid for the
remainder of the case, and the one now
on trial. l would like to have Mr.. In
glcdue, who signed the contract. and
whose duty it is to know what lawyers
are to get when hired by the judiciary
committee.
l think you owe this letter the same
publicity that you gave to the opinion
of Mr.. Van Law in the spring, for
without this correction 1t would APP
pear that the contract was used a
gainst Mr.. Ingledue without some SEM
blsnce of truth. Yours, Roy r. Water
bury.
Councilman Abbott, chairman of the
judiciary committee, and City Solicitor
Van Law, when seen today regarding
Waterburys criticism, concur In the
following explanation which In sub
stance is that written contract was
made in which Mr.. Van Law and the
firm Of Roa1dman, Aldrich and Law
renee, were employed to prepare de-
Inse for and to defend In court the
first paving case. 1t was there stipu-
lated that each law firm should receive
$500. The latter firm also was given a
retainer fee of $50, which held 1t in
readiness and under obligation to serve
the city and not any plaintiff In the
other cases should the judiciary COM
mittee wish to employ 1t and verbal
understanding was then had that the
lawyers charges in future cases should
be at the rate of $25 per day each for
actual time spent in the trial
court, 1t being assumed that
the preparation Of a defense in
one case would do for all the others
At the time Mr.. Waterbury made his
campaign the contract provided for
employment of attorneys in one case
only and 1T was this cons uction of
the contract that Mr.. Van Law was
willing to stake his reputation upon.
1t was then supposed that one test case
would do for all of them. Afterwards
Judge Caswell finding decision diff
cult in the Brown case suggested that
Judge Burn11am hear second and to-
gether they would try to render de-
cision matured from the greater wis
dom which two heads are supposed to
have over one. Then for q second time
the judiciary committee, not wishing to
weaken, instructed Boardman, A1drich
& Lawrence to assist in the second or
Calhoun test case before Judge Burn
ham, and this firm will receive only
the $25 per diem for actual time in
court. A slight misunderstanding
arose in that the assisting counsel.
wishing the court docket to show all
the cases In which its firm might APP
pear. instructed the clerk to enter Its
appearance in all Of the forty-seven
cases, but Mr.. Van Law counterrnand-
ed these instructions and 1t now re-
mains for the judiciary committee of
the council to say In each and every
other case whether or not Boardman,
Aldrich & Lawrence shall appear.
Mr.. Waterbury claimed that a contract
had been made by the city council to
pay each of these lawyers $3.50 apiece
for each of the forty-seven cases and
this was not true. lit was then sup
posed that one test case would end the
litigation. Now with both Judges pass
ing on the matter it is hoped with still
greater expectation that the two test
cases will end them all.-Ed.l