Should Be Like Caesar's Wife

Should Be Like Caesar's Wife

City Attorney Should Not Have Dual Capacity

Cn Serve One Master

Answer to a Letter Hon. A. J. Sawyer on Separation of Grade Separation

From Monday's Daily Argus

City Attorney Sawyer or Railroad Attorney Sawyer, we are not perfectly clear in which capacity he was writing, published a letter addressed to one of the editors of the Argus, Saturday night, which was not sent either to the editor or to the paper. The letter merely asked 12 questions in lawyer style, containing nothing that the query as to whether or not one of the editors of the Argus favors grade separation. The following answer to the letter was sent this morning to the Times, to whom alone Mr. Sawyer's letter was sent, in order that the readers of that paper might understand the real issue, which is not whether grade separation is a good thing, but whether it is proper for the city attorney to be the railroad's attorney in dealing with the city.

Editor Times: Hon. A. J. Sawyer in your esteemed paper Saturday evening addressed a series of twelve questions to me relative to my position on grade separation. While I cannot conceive why my position should be of any public interest as I am only a private citizen, neither seeking nor desiring office, I can answer the questions in a few words. The Argus has been a consistent advocate of grade separation from the first. It has not changed its position. It still believes in grade separation. The "crossing board statute" does not, as of course Mr. Sawyer knows, afford au adequate means of securing grade separation. But this has nothing to do with the question at issue as to whether or not in the matter of grade separation the city attorney can with propriety be also the attorney of the Ann Arbor Railroad.

At the time Mr. Sawyer's confirmation as city attorney was before the council, the charge was made that Mr. Sawyer was an attorney for the Ann Arbor railroad. By referring to your rules of the first meeting of the council in July, 1901, you will see that it was charged that Mr. Sawyer was attorney for the Ann Arbor road, the Boland road and the water works. Mayor Copeland told the council that he had had a distinct understanding with Mr. Sawyer that if confirmed Mr. Sawyer would sever all interests of this kind, and the mayor further gave the council his word that if Mr. Sawyer's private interests ever interfered with the city's, he would be the first to ask Mr. Sawyer to resign. I am writing with the newspaper report of this meeting in front of me.

Under a brisk fire of newspaper criticism, Mr. Sawyer was compelled to return his retainer of $50 to the water company. The Boland road seems to have fallen into a condition of innocuous desuetude. And nothing on the surface seemed to indicate that Mr. Sawyer retained any connection with the Ann Arbor road. Indeed, at the time it was indignantly denied that he had any. 

Relying upon the mayor's word, I had not the slightest idea when this grade separation matter carne up that Mr. Sawyer was an attorney of the Ann Arbor road. If I had, although only a private citizen, I should have scrutinized much more closely what was being done, for Mr. Sawyer was practically the only man relied upon to look out for the city's interest, and if he were in the employ of the corporation with whom the city was dealing, the temptation to favor the road might be too strong even for a man of such known probity as Mr. Sawyer.

The conditions at the time were such that grade separation on at least five streets could have been secured without cost to the city. When the proposition was first presented to the council both Hawks-Angus and Boland were to pay the Ann Arbor road a certain amount and the city was to pay nothing. As matters now stand Hawks-Angus are to pay the road their share and the city is to pay for one viaduct, looking to Boland for reimbursement if he ever builds. It can easily be seen how Mr. Sawyer's manipulations may have stuck the city for say $10,000. If it had been known that Mr. Sawyer was the attorney for the Ann Arbor road is it to be supposed that the mayor or council would not have scrutinized the ordinance he drew much more closely than they did?

As to Mr. Sawyer's query as to whether or not the city ought not to join in defending suits, I may say that if they do join they should be represented by different attorneys, as their interests are not identical and sometimes conflict. When damages are caused it may be a question as to whether the city or the road pays. Certainly the city does not want to defend the tearing up of sidetracks and the putting of factories out of business months before grade separation is to be brought about. The city does not want to aid the road to vent its spite.

I am in favor of grade separation, and hence do not want a city attorney so tied up to the railroad by being in its employ as to permit it to put another track across Hill street on grade without permission of the city.

Although in favor of grade separation, I want to see the Ann Arbor road, the party principally benefitted, made to keep its expressed agreements, which the city attorney has neglected to get in writing, and which neglect I own to will cost the city many a dollar.

I fail to see how Mr. Sawyer can serve both the city and the railroad. I fear occasionally malign influence of Mr. Hyde may prevail over the good impulses of Dr. Jekyl and that in these cases, the city will suffer. The Railroad has lawyers. The city has but one.

My knowledge of law may not be as profound as Mr. Sawyer's, my long experience at the bar may not extend over 40 years but if profundity of legal knowledge blunts the sensibilities so that without compunctions a man can serve as the lawyer of two clients with conflicting interests I am glad I have it not. Instead a modicum of common sense would suffice.

During the next few months the city and the railroad will many times come in conflict, especially with the road showing the spirit it has manifested during the past month. The city wants a new attorney free from entangling alliances. A little less profundity might suffice.

S. W. Beakes