The Tacoma times. [volume] (Tacoma, Wash.) 1903-1949, 1941-09-26

k@<s4>xN>.-zzkz.2z-z4 a - - = 80
Letters and phone calls of
the past few days indicate
that Tacoma topic of discus
sion is the lawyers tees fixed
in the Narrows bridge insur-
Rnce settlement case.
Readers viii recall that the
! companies capitulated and agreed
10 pay land now have paid
$4,000, 900 on the IS, 200. 900 policy.
From the Public's standpoint, it
was prsiseworthy and advan-
tageous end to the dispute. Espe-
cially is this SO. since 1t was affect
ed without delay consequent on
court hearing of the case and pos
sible high court appeal.
However, eyebrows arched when
Attorney General Smith Troy APP
reared in superior court here and
asked that each of two special
counsel be paid $4,000
Special counsel then voiced their
fee pleas, and the judge decided
$4,000 for each would be about
right.
Local folk armed with pass
ably good memories recall a
certain chain of events at the
last session of our legislature.
Then the attorney general and
his aides lobbied for the bill to
give him sole power to select and
set salaries for ell lawyers in all
departments of state government.
The bill was described as one
n assure the attorney-general
powers justly his and which would
result In greater economy Of
=. operation. The bill was passed,
and turned out to be almost the
sole result of the Democratic ma
jority's effort to strip the new
Republican governor of authority.
One of those who furthered
and voted for the bill was
State Senator Leo McGavick,
of the 26th legislative dis
trict, in which a Narrows
bridge was land will be, we
hope) located.
one of the special counsel in
the insurance case. now due to
receive a fee of $4,000, also was
Senator McGavick. The other was
George Boldt. of Seattle.
Now. nobody, I think, objects
10 attorneys being paid for a good
Job well done.
But, the question FOLKS are ask
ing is
Why was II necessary 10 hire
expensive outside aid the first
time a ma jor case in litigation
came along after the attorney
general WAS vested with his new
authority TO hire and direct ali
state legal talent?
II is true, in its Resolution
No. 143 dated Mar. 28, 1941)
Washington Toll Bridge au-
~thority concurred in the at
torney-generals recommends
tion that special counsel be
hired.
The resolution closed with this
sentence: THE fees of such eoun-
sci shall be, in any event, no
greater than the amount therefor
first approved by the attorney
general"
And the Judge in the case
might have wondered why the at
torney-genersl asked him TO fix
fees had the Judge recalled that
the new attorney general law
tchap. 50. laws Of 1891. after
giving the A-G control Of all state
legal aides. says.
%. the zttorney-genersl shall
q. the salary and compensation
for all such attorneys and en-
ployes ."
In view Of that, the court might
wonder If the state official vas
shifting responsibility for the FIX
ing OF these fees.
OF course. 1t will be said, II
defense OF the new laws asserted
economy theory. that such fees VII
not Dc paid from funds collected
s. taxes
But let's not De Kidd
Whether the money comes from
ferry tolls. income from sale o.
binds or future bridge tolls, !
comes from the public's pocket.
II differs from tax funds as d.
taO hairs from your puzzled head