New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1916-10-20
MIGHT WANT CON-
MISSION FROM STATE
WOULD BE EXPENSIVE IF
HE CLAIMED FIVE PER
CENT AN 100000
HANDLED ANNUALLY AS
LAND COMMISSIONER

Roswell, N NJ, Oct Many resi-
dents Of the Pecos Valley are won
dering if G.. A. Davisson, of Ros-
we'll, democratic candidate for state
land commissioner, would expect to
collect form the state in addition
sale or lease of state lands in the
event (happily remote) that he is
elected Or if he would expect COM
missions to himself from the pur-
chasers or leases of state lands to
reimburse him for handling such pur-
chasers or leases through the state
office in his charge.
This speculation among the people
is prompted by the story of Davis
sons efforts while county treasurer
of Chaves county, to collect a COM
mission for alleged services in SELL
ing the bond issue of local drainage
districts, first from the drainage dis
trict commissioners and then from
the agent of the Kansas City con-
tractor who took the bonds in con-
sideration for his getting the con-
tract to install the drainage plants
Davisson is still county treasurer
and is acting treasurer of the drain
age districts.
Davisson made efforts to sell the
H50,000 bond issue of the Dexter
Greenfield, Hagerman and Roswell
drainage districts. all situated in
Chaves county. He made some trips
to Kansas City and Chicago in ef-
forts to sell the bonds.
Walter S. Dickey the Kansas CITY
contractor who got the contract for
installing the drainage plants, bid 90
cents for the bonds. His only bid
and the drainage commissioners ac-
cepted it. Now, the law stipulates
that the drainage districts cannot
pay commissions for the sale of
bonds unless the price received is
more than 90 cents. This precluded
Davisson's getting commission
from the districts for the sale of
the bonds.
Knowing Davisson's penchant for
commissions and that he was maneu-
vering for one in this instance, J.
R. Stanley, C. N Moore, F. 6. Keyes
and other residents of the Dexter
Greenfield drainage district institu-
ted suit against B. II. Wixon, Bremb
Hurst and J. T. Mills, commissions
ers of the Dexter-Greenfield drain
age district, the district itself and
against Walter 5. Dickey, contrac-
tor, to prevent the payment of COM
missions to Davisson or others for
the sale of the bonds. The citizens
did not relish paying huge commits
sions when the bonds fetched only
90 cents.
In connection with this suit Davis
son made an affidavit that he had
no contract or arrangement with the
drainage commissioners, or Walter
5. Dickey, to get any whack-up in
the way of commissions or pay
ments on the drainage deal The
salient part of Davisson's affidavit
follows:
"Affiant states that he has re-
ceived no compensation whatever
from any source by way OF connis-
sions or otherwise for whatever scrv-
ices he has rendered in securing
purchaser for said bonds, and that
he has no contract, agreement or
arrangement of any kind with the
commissioners of any of said drain
age districts, with Walter S. Dickey,
the Commerce Trust company, or
Bolger, Mosser and Whitman for
compensation that as the matter
now stands, the affiant has sus-
tained considerable loss in the way
interest purchasers in the securities
Of time and expenses in trying TO
Of said drainage districts.
It should be stated, parentnetical-
". that Walter S. Dickey, beng a
aud not a bond bu, err,
TUNED the bonds over 20 Bolger,
Aosser and Whitman, a ii,.ca 20 |
bond house, through the agency of
the Commerce Trust company of |
Kansas City.
Davisson's affidavit about all this |
was subscribed and sworn to be- |
lore a notary December 20, 1915. |
Bear that date in mind. It was
he last month of the year 1915.
Now, then, some time after Davis
ion had made that affidavit he in
;tituted a suit against g. H. Tefit.
IN employe of Contractor Walter
). Dickey's authorized agent and ex- /
.cutive in the Pecos valley work, TO
ecover the sum OF $35,, ,968l4, which
)avisson alleged Tefft had agreed
O pay him for services in putting
through the drainage bond sale and
he contract for buildin the system.
In his suit Davisson alleged that
refft had employed him for such
ervices January 10, 1915, and that
.e had entered into an agreement
nth him on that date. 1t was more
han ten months after February 10
hat he made that affidavit that he
lad no agreements for comrensa-
ioa in the drainage district deal.
To be sure, Davisson's suit to re-
over the nifty sum Of .$35!o68 as