Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-02-20
Mr.. Stevenson and His Fee.

When the editor of The Enquirer
said what he did the other day about
Representative Stevenson, he had no
idea that the Chesterfield statesman
would take the matter so much to
heart, and as a matter Of fact we are
even now little doubtful as to wheth-
er the gentleman is as much concerned
as he would have it appear.
On last Wednesday Hon. Joshua
Ashley asked Mr.. Stevenson in debate
how much fee he had gotten out Of the
dispensary winding-up commission
and Mr.. Stevenson came pretty near
telling the honorable Joshua that 1t
was none Of his business. The only
satisfaction that was vouchsafed to the
Hon. Joshua was that Mr.. Stevenson
had earned what he got.
Now II Is true that this fee business
| is a matter of record: but the editor
of The Enquirer did not happen to
have the records handy, and we beg
leave to suggest that If Mr.. Stevenson
had given the Hon. Joshua Ashley q
civil explanation, such as he gave last
Saturday when he was evidently laying
pipe for his retention to still further
Service" we would have hardly fallen
into any confusion.
But it appears that there really was
$4,000 fee. Our recollection was
that these were the figures; but we
thought that Mr.. Stevenson got 100000
and B. L. Abney, Esq, got 100000. Our
impression as to this, however, was
incorrect. Mr.. Stevenson and Mr.. Alb
ney got $4,000 each.
In order that the full significance Of
the situation be comprehended, be it
remembered that Mr.. Stevenson was
the regular attorney of the board and
Mr.. Abney was called in from the out
side. Now there Is no question Of the
fact that Mr.. Abney Is q man Of brains
"a sure-enough lawyer. We are not
Questioning his fee. for he had right
to make his own terms, and as we
agree with a great many other people
in the view that he did practically all
of the work, we are not surprised that
the fee was a good one. But by what
method Of equalizing adjustment could
the services and abilities of Mr..
Stevenson be put on a par with those
of Mr.. Abney? The thing is not only
inexplicable to us, but we have heard
quite a number Of good lawyers laugh
| ing about it.
| But there is another thing we can
not understand. Mr.. Stevenson says he
was representing the state, and yet
he claims that the liquor house paid
the fee. Possibly we are very dense;
but, nevertheless, 1t Is a puzzle. If he
was representing the state as against
the liquor houses, 1t seems to us that
whatever he recovered would belong
to the state, and when the state paid
him out of what he recovered, the state
would be shy just that much. If the
state agreed to give him $4,000, then
the state was liberal-very liberal.
| Another thing we would like to know.
Remember that we have not criticised
Mr. Abney. His case is different; but
will Mr.. Stevenson advise us whether
Mr.. Abney, employed by the state. was
also paid by the liquor houses? If so,
| 1t will have to be conceded that the
liquor houses were very generous in
this matter-as generous as with the
alleged dispensary grafters. These
alleged grafters, it will be remembered,
used to claim that they got their graft
not from the state but from the liquor
houses. OF course we could not see
it that way, and we are unable to see
! 1t that way yet.