The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-08-12

Confined from Page one.l
torney general today in response to a
special request from Governor Cap
per for a ruling as to the legal status
of the fee paid to Dawson in the gas
receivership suits. Dawson is now in
California with his family and has
made no statement concerning the
facts in the gas case The fee was al
lowed by Judge Flannelly of Mont
gomerY. county.
General Rrewster's Opinion.
Commenting on the case, General
Brewster said in part:
Whether attorney fees were allow
ed in these various cases or not do
not know, nor am 1 able to say wheth
err an attorney fee was allowed to the
Encouragement under the prayer of
this petition, ror am 1 able to say
whether the fee mentioned in your let
ter was allowedi in accordance with the
prayer of this petition. If the fee was
allowed in accordance with the prayer
of this petition and was allowed under
the provisions of the antitrust and
monopoly laws of this state, which
provided for an allowance of an attor
ney fee as the statutes of this state
stood prior to January 1, 1915, the at
tOrney-general was entitled to accept
and receive such fees and keep the
same as his own, as might be allowed
in the proceedings had under these
various statutes If the fee was al
lowed under the prayer of this petit,
ton, then there is no question about
the right of the attorney general to
receive and keep such fee.
The legislature in 1913, however, so
amended the law as to provide that
all fees, after January II, 1915, re-
ceived in prosecutions of this kind by
the attorney-general should be paid
into the general revenue fund of the
state.
1 shall assunme, for the purpose of
this opinion, that the fee of $S,325.00,
mentioned in your letter to me, was
not received as a fee allowed to the at
torney-general under the antitrust
and monopoly laws of this state, but
was allowed by the court and paid to
him by the receivers of the corpora
ton for services rendered as attorney
for the receivers, and that the same is
true of all the fees mentioned in your
letter and which has been the subject
of comment in the newspapers.
Court Had Full Power
There is no question that the dis
trict court of Montgomery county had
full power and authority to make an
receivers appointed Dy him and to the
attorneys for the receivers. The
amount of compensation that should
be allowed to the receivers and attor-
neys was a matter largely in the dis
erection of the court, and in case the
corporation or other parties interest
ed, either because OF receiving the
fees or of having to pay out the
money Tor the ices, Such corporation
or other partieSW would have a right to
appeal from the order and judgment
of the court, or they would have had a
right, in due time, to have asked the
court to modify its orders and to
grant a less amount or a larger
amount than had been granted by the
court.
1 assume that the $685. allowed to
John S. Dawson was allowed him as
compensation for services rendered
the receivers and that he was directed
by the court of Montgomery county
to act for the receivers. If my as
sumption is true, the only question
for me to pass upon is whether or not
John S Dawson, while he was attor-
ney general and while he was acting
attorney for the state in this litiga-
ton, was entitled to keep the fees paid
him by the receivers. There was no
statute of the state of Kansas at the
cepted which prohibited the attorney
general from acting as attorney for
receivers in a case brought by him
for the state on his relation attor-
ney general. Neither was there any
thing in the law to prevent an attor-
ney who commenced a suit, or who
was attorney for either party in a suit
to accept employment as attorney for
the receivers appointed in a suit, when
in the judgment of the court such ac-
ceptance of employment was for the
best interests of the parties and did
not conflict with the interests of the
clients of such attorney in such litiga-
ton.
Iron Pumps at F'orbes's-Adv.