The weekly true Democrat. (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1905-1912, 1907-03-01

has more than he can do, he should
have assistance
First The Journal thinks IL aseist.
ance is 20 be employed. as good a deal
for this assistance should be made as
If counsel WAS being employed in some
private case. No one would dispute
that: But is The Journal prepared 70
say that as good a deal was not made
in the case Of the |. ]. Board as might
have been made by private parties? In
this case about three million acres Of
land are involved, and also the ques-
ton Of the validity Of the drainage tax
act. There are quite a number Of
cases involved pending in the various
courts The Recorder is not prepared
90 say that a private individual could
have secured legal help in cases where
possibly a million or more dollars are
involved for a period Of two or three
years for less than $50. 600. We
venture the prediction that the attOr-
neys on the other side Of these same
suits have been paid more than $25, 900
for their 9eryices during the same
period
The Journal reterates that If the at
tOrney general needs legal help in the
proper. performance of his duties, he
should be given this assistance, and all
the assistance he needs, but 1t should
be- gwen 10 him only on his request,
and when done so, the services Of these
lawyers should be under his direct SUI
peryisiOn There can be no disputing
this proposition.
The Recorder takes issue with The
Journal on the question as 20 whether
or not as fair deal was made with the
general counsel of the board Of trus-
tees Of this fund az could have been
made with him or any other good law
yer In q private matter. The Recorder
says II Is not prepared to say that a
private individual could have secured
similar services for less money, and
Rrees with the Recorder. There is no
question In our mind but what two of
the most prominent lawyers in the
state could have been retained by the
trustees for the same amount Of money
that Ia now being paid one.
The question OF what other lawyers,
on the other side Of these cases, are
getting, has nothing TO do with the
point at issue. Because the railrdad
companies want TO pay twenty thou
sand dollars Is no reason why the state
should pay this amount According 70
this argument, IL the railroads paid
their attorneys one hundred thousand
dollars TO push these suits, the trus-
tees would be in duty bound 10 pay the
same amount for lawyers to defend
them.
Continuing further, the Recorder
says:
The Journal thinks every matter of
this nature should at least come under
the supervision OF the attorney general
and IL should be done in his name.
The Journal here assumes that the
legal work in these land suits has not
been done under the supervision of the
attorney genepal, and that his name
does not appear Of record. The Jour
nal Is in error as TO this, and therefore, |
its beautiful argument falls to the
ground. The attorney general and
special counsel have prepared the cases
for the ttate together in each of the |
suits, and the attorney generals name
u used in every case as attorney gen. |
eral of the state.
IL the Journal stated that the attor- |
ney-general had no connection either In |
name or act, with the suits, Il was In |
error. In the report Of the trustees
the general counsel acknowledges hav-
ing received assistance from the attOr-
ney-genernl, but IL has been our i'm
preston that the work Of the attorney
general has been only nominal, and
that his other duties prevented him
from giving much Of his time to the
suits Of the trustees.
II the Encouragement has given
very much Of hts time 70 these suits,
az the Recorder would have US believe,
then Il only makes the case look worse
for the trustees, because it shows they
have been receiving more legal assist
ance than was at hrst figured on, and
hence shows lese work done by the
specially retained counsel.
The Recorder concludes It's argument
az follows:
The Journal further states that rs the
matter now stands the encouragement
has nothing whatever TO do with the
employment Of these lawyers. that IL
he needs assistance in matter con-
nected with the railroad commission, !
that body, and not the encouragement, !
employs the lawyer or lawyers. Now, |
this argument Of the Journal sOunGs !
very fine, and the only trouble about il |
is that Il IL not true. ThAAfact is. fhe |
Encouragement Ii = member Of the |, |
l. board and as such has as much 10 do I
with employment Of counsel as any
other member Of that board. II ~ also /
true that the railroad commission can 4
not employ special counsel without THE I
permission of the attorney general. /
II may be true that the employment