The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1909-04-21
that BIG FEE
That the DispsnsaTy Commission
Was To Pay
HAS SKUNK AWFULLY


Concerning the Share Going to
Gen. Anderson, Col. Fielder, Major
Rountree and Capt. Wilson.
The following letter explains
itself:
The Atlanta Constitutions:
notice that in an article in your
paper of Thursday last YOU state
the following: From reliable
sources it has been learned that the
Atlanta law firm Of Anderson, Field
or, Rourtree & Wilson will receive
between s150,000 and 100000 as
their fee for their services in win
ming the famous South Carolina dis
pensary case recently decided IN faV-
or Of their clients, and involving
about a million dollars in cash cn
hand, and between two millions and
three millions in claims. This Will
no doubt be the record fee IN the
South.
when this firm was employed IN
the case, it is understood they were
given a cash retainer fee OF S10V,-
600 and made a contract for COM
mission Of so much on the sums
recovered
This statement is entirely mislead-
ing and puts the commission IN
South Carolina in an improper at
titude. If it merely concerned N.Y.
self 7 should pass it by, but it mis-
leads the public, many Of whom take
your paper in South Carol IA, and
is largely untrue Notwithstanding
the source Of your information may
be reliable.
In the first place, the fund in
voled was only 100000, the en-
tire claims being asserted in that
litigation against the fund being
only s250,0O0 instead Of s3,o00,0OO.
In the next place, no retainer Zee
was paid the Atlanta firm at all
but they simply were given the con-
trac, at their own solicitation, to be
paid 10 per cent of the amount
which they might reduce the claims
by evidence which they would turn
ish d.. their own expense. The total
amount of claims originally being
sSoC,OoO and the possibility OF re-
duction, therefore, not being over
s6o0,0O0 and if the claims had been
entirely eliminated, their fee fol-
that branch of service could only be
$4,000. AS matter Of ,act. claims
have been reduced thus far some
thing like 100000, which, on that
branch of the case, would entltle the
Atlanta firm to a fee of $4,000
In addition to that they were to have
SO per cent of what they received
back of money that had been paid
away Illegally and lost, they to bear
all of the expense and the commls-
sion to have absolutely no expense
with regard to this.
Up to this time nothing has beer
recovered back, but I will say thai
these gentlemen have been very &C.
tive and spent lot of money and
am very much pleased with their
work in that line and believe that
they will receive very considerable
amount of money in the long run
but you will see from this state
ment that the commission was done
great injustice in stating that they
had been paid 100000 retainer fee
and that the fees would probably
run up another 100000 to these
gentlemen, but am sure from my
very pleasant association and con-
nection with them, that they could
not have been consulted before you
made the statement. In addition tn
that my private affairs and those Of
Col. Abney seem to have been in
vaded in that you state that /, as
general counsel for the commission,
receive stated sum fo- my servic-
es. That is only partially true, for
litigation I receive the usual fee,
for advising the commission l re-
ceive a contract price.
You say further Of these gentle
men ''by winning this case the At
lanta firm has won one of the most
sweeping victories ever announced
from the supreme court of the Unit
ed States
When you reflect that the Allan
ia firm were not employed by the
commission even to assist in the
proceeding in the United States su-
preme court but appeared for the
reason that they had a personal in
terest in the matter because if the
courts retained jurisdiction they
would be unable to carry out their
contract so as to earn any consid-
cradle commission, you will see that
you have done the other attorneys an
injustice in the matter. The fact
is, that the firm Of Stevenson & Mat
thewson, and the firm of Abney &
Muller were the representatives of
the commisSionl and the Atlanta
firm represented their own interests
which was entirely contingent in the
matter and the litigation was so far
controlled by the attorney general
and the two, firms named, that, al
though Mr.. Rountree OF the Atlanta
firm insisted strenuously in prepar-
ing the petition for certiorari that
the very question upon which the
State has won should not be set
forth in the assignments Of erorr,
and came to Columbia for the pur-
pose of taking up the matter with
US, he was there overrUled by US,
so you Will see that the Atlanta firm
is not entitled to the sole credit of
the victory as it was one in the |
face Of the position taken by the