The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1909-04-15
THAT BIG FEE
That the Dlspensary Commission
Was To Pay
HAS SWUNK AWFULLY

HAS SWJNK AWFULLY
1i,-e the Darkies' Catfish-Col.
Stevenson Sets Forth the Facts
Concerning the Share Going to
Gen. Anderson, Col. Fielder, Major
Rountree and Capt. Wilson.
The following letter explains
itself:
The Atlanta Constitution:
notice that in an article in your
paper of Thursday last you state
the following: From rella Die
sources it has been learned that the
Atlanta law firm of Anderson, Feld-
or. Rountree & Wilson will receive
batween S150,OOO and 100000 as
their fee for their services IN VIII
ming the famous South Carolina dis
nensary case recently decided in taV-
or of their clients, and involving
about million dollars in cash on
hand and between two millions anu
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 cash retainer fee OF Sloo'-
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 my
self I should pass it by, but it mis-
leads the public, many of whom take
your paper in South Carolina, and
is largely untrue Notwithstanding
the source of your information may
be reliable.
In the first place, the fund IN
yoled was only 100000, the en-
tire claims being asserted in that
litigation against the fund being
only s25O,OOO instead of S3,OOC,OOo.
In the next place, no retainer fee
was paid the Atlanta firm at ALL
but they simply were given the con-
tract at their own solicitation, to be
paid 10 per cent Of the amount
which they might reduce the claims
nv evidence which they would furn-
ish at their own expense. The total
amount of claims originally being
s6OO,OO9 and the possibility OF re-
duction, therefore, not being over
100000 and if the claims had been
entirely eliminated, their fee for
that branch of service could only be
100000. AS matter of fact. claims
have been reduced thus far some
thing like 100000, which, on that
branch of the case, would entitle 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 commits
sion to have absolutely no expense
with regard to this.
Up to this time nothing has been
recovered back, but l will say that
these gentlemen have been very ac-
tive and spent lot Of money and
am very much pleased with their
work in that line and believe that
they will receive z very considerable
amount of money in the long run,
but you will see from this state
ment that the commission was done
a 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 to
that my private affairs and those Of
Col Abney seem to have been in
vaded in that you state that l, as
general counsel for the commission,
receive a stated sum for my servic-
es. That is only partially true, for
litigation I receive the usual fee,
for advising the commission l re-
ceive 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 he
commission even to assist in the
proceeding in the United States SUI
preme court but appeared for the
reason that they had 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