Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1918-06-21
INSURANCE COMP ANY CLEARS
JOHN STEEN OF IRRECULARITY
IN The INTEREST CONTROVERSY

IN so far as the state vas concerned,
on the part Of Mr.. Steen. In fact.
Mr.. Steen indicated a willingness to
do anything that the court would re-
quire as necessary under the situa-
ton that arose. In view Of the fur
ther fact that nothing in the statute
or any other place that we had been
able to find, required the payment of
interest obtained upon security on
deposit into the state treasury, Steen
had no authority to credit this inter-
est to the states account, but indi-
Gated a willingness to do 30 IL the
court should so require. ..4,-, -
There was no necessity for any per-
son making any demand on Steen for
this money under this situation above
indicated. as you will readily see any
demand upon Steen in view Of the
above circumstances would consist in
nothing under the sun other than po-
| lttical "kybosh" and camoudage.
Case Submitted to Court
The case was submitted to the
court. and on November 20. 1917, a
judgment was entered, a copy Of
which judgment I am handing you
enclosed herewith. This judgment
was drawn in this Office and with no
NNS" ~ oAAy e4AAA6 QOllIl(0l 'Uclu& az
tached to it. and you will see from the
judgment itself that John Steen could
neither admit that the money belong
ed to h state, nor could he deny that
1t belonged to the state, but simply
held it pursuant to such instructions
rs the court might give in it's judg-
ment.
The court, you viii notice, held
that we were entitled to the money.
that ts that the insurance company
was entitled to the money. which is
certainly a most forceable approval
OF John Steen's conduct in refusing
. to pay the money to anybody until
the court should by decision indicate
who was entitled to it. The judg-
ment. as I stated. was entered on
November %. 1917. and at the time
the case was actually submitted the
present attorney generals ONCE was
IN power and argued the case in be-
half Of the state. They let the matter
drift from the time that the judg-
ment was entered until some time the
latter part Of January, 1918, before
they served notice Of appeal on us,
appealing the case to the supreme
court.
No Blame on Steen.
AS the matter now stands, in any
event, Mr.. Steen has the decree Of the
district court to the effect that any
claim on the part Of the state to this
money should have been refused, and
that he paid this money over to the
state. we would have obtained a judy
ment against him on his bond in ia
vor Of the insurance company for so
doing. In view Of the fact that we
are against Mr.. Steen in that action
and are still on the opposite side from
him In the supreme court, I don't
think that any person would justly
claim that we were attempting in any
manner to shield him or protect him.
We are out to get this money for our
client If there is any proper or legal
way to do 50, but the demand OF
justice impell US to the statement
that n claim Of any bad faith or
wrongful conduct in any manner upon
Mr.. Steen in connection with this &C
ton are absolutely unfounded, and
any state officer who would reflect
upon Mr.. Steen in connection with
this matter does so either from a lack
Of knowledge Of state affairs or with
an Interior motive that could hardly
be approved.
Very truly yours,
(signed) u. F. Sullivan.