The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1913-05-02

of $25, 900 allowed him by the legisla-
ture was considered by at least four
men who held the office of governor
of this state as fair, just and liberal
settlement.
1t has been previously shown that
the constitution authorized the enact
ment of a general law for bringing
suit against the state" The proposed
act now before the legislature is far
from being a general law 1t is I'M
doubtedly in controvention of the
spirit of the constitution, which all
registered voters of the state are
sworn to protect. The questioning of
the honesty of the state in the settle
ment of the Wales claim is more or
less a questioning of the honesty of
the men who supported that settle
ment.
In order that the people may be
more fully informed l sincerely hope
that the press OF the state will publish
my special message to the legislature
Of May IA, 1899
Before the final settlement of the
Wales claim in 1908 it is safe to say
that but few legislators ever examin-
ed the claim. I know that before I
examined it in 1903 I felt very favora-
hJa I'd XEaiIo Al
careful examination. however I am
satisfied that the said S. I. WALES was
well paid for the work he did
The procurement of the data for the
states claim was practically paid for
by the state. The United States gov
eminent had an undisputed claim
against the state for $4,000. 1t re-
quired no lobbying to pass a resOlu-
ton through congress directing one
of the departments to audit the claims
of the United States government and
the state of Florida This required
the work of senators and congress-
men. Is. I. Wales does not claim
that he lobbied). 1t also required
their work to secure the passage of
the bill authorizing payment of the
states claim, same having been in
excess of the claim of the United
States government. At the passage
of this act the said S. l. Wales was
absent from Washington, and had
been absent for several years.
But why should an act be passed
authorizing only S. l. Wales and par
ties having a claim of $4,000 and
more to sue the state, when the con
stitution authorizes only the passage
of a general law? Is this general
law" fair and just to the small, poor
claimants against the state? Is it ac-
cording to the spirit of the constitu-
ton?
Suppose the court should say that
the only act which authorized the ap-
pointment of an agent, limited the
expenses to $500, and that the partner
of S. |. Wales. w K. Beard. had re-
ceived more than this amount.
S. l. Wales claims he did no lobby
ing. The state had already paid
Wales partner, w. K. Beard, while
a clerk in the cOmptroller's office. for
getting up the data representing the
states claim. The legislature of 1877,
which passed the only act authorizing
the appointment of such agent limit
ed the expenses to an amount which
with the data already paid for by the
state, in my opinion, was a fair
amount, $500 Wales partner had al
ready gotten from the state more
than this $500 while working with
Wales.
Suppose the court should say that
the additional $4,000 already drawn
by Wales should be returned to the
state, who is going to pay it back to
the state? Certainly not the patriots
whose patriotism is Illuminated and
boiling over at the prospect of the fee
which they will secure in the event
the courta should decide that the
state should pay more than the
amount already paid
write this fully approaching the
fact that some of the patriots" who
hope to make money out of this will
forever be on my coat-tails. How
ever. there is some satisfaction in
knowing that l generally wear a sack
coat-which is tailless.
/ | write this because it is a duty |
owe to the state and to its people.
Very truly,
ALBERT w GILCHRIST.