Show IT WAS DEAD ROBBERY 1 l SAYS P S RICHARDS OP THE compromise mic peters says the still aas ills approval we have endeavored to kaep the readers of the ENQUIRES thoroughly posted on the zane dyer examination since tho start As the most important actors in the alay were zane for the trustees deters for dyer and richards Kic hards for the church we have considered it advisable to publish in full the testimony of those three judge zanes we have already given we now produce that of peters and richards as given friday before the examiner mr peters was called by judge powers and testified I 1 was employed by the receiver shortly after his appointment I 1 accepted only on condition ahat all parties should consent mr dyer received a communication fr m attorney general garland to the effect that he had no objection to the employment thereupon accepted it the suit against the church aca in charge of thoa attorney general nd I 1 acted under his direction I 1 acted as attorney for the until last november there was never any arrangement confederacy or agreement with mr dyer or any one elso with reference to my employment as attorney leavo never known of any combination or understanding open or secret by which the receiver fore boro to do anything or did anything he should not have done in this suit there was no collusion with the defendant in anyway the receiver always consulted with his attorneys before taking any step I 1 was consulted on the terms of the compromise in the main case it was my judgment and is now that it was a fair compromise with all the matters that have since lieen testified to I 1 read the compromise to the court in the conversation that followed the defendants said they did not object to the compromise which was turning over the property mr marshall said it was turning over the proceeds ortho property the court inquired if all parties were agreed and the answer was in the affirmative nothing was said as to values all on that subject is in tho petition for compromise I 1 kept the attorney general fully advised of all the steps in the case I 1 stated to mr koyle after I 1 returned from washington that the settlement was approved by tha at torney general to judge marshall I 1 did not know at the time of the compromise that it was acceptable to the actor ney general I 1 do not consider the receivers couise coui se as negligent he did hot delay but was all the time on the look out for property I 1 did not inspect his leaves for they were left with mr williams and mr dyer I 1 believe tha petition for compromise correctly stated the facia I 1 understood we wore getting nearer tho value in some instances than in others in some cases we got 50 per cent and in others 75 per cent we did not consider the value of the Z C M L factory because we could not have recovered that we got about 80 per cent of the value of that part of the u constitution lot that we had a chance of recovering we got about 70 per cent of the value of the street car stock that is if the corporation was properly managed we had a fighting chance for that we had to depend on mr armstrong to make out a case against himself I 1 did not draw the order authorizing the compromise 1 presume J saw it before it was presented but could not say I 1 remember that mr marshall said to the court that he considered the compromise fair and reasonable it was tho privilege of the court to know the value of the property I 1 thought they had it and they evidently thought so too for they acted eo if they had had any doubts they would probably have taken testimony I 1 did not deem it my duty to volunteer anything or to appear officious I 1 thought there was enough set forth inthe petition I 1 was specially employed by the at torney general in this case I 1 was directed to work on it but was informed that I 1 would not get paid anything extra for the service thero was no written agreement showing that i the was in lieu of the and that the united states had no right to further pursue that personal property I 1 know of no written acceptance cep tance of the compromise but that was the understanding there were several bricea suspected of being held on sacred trust for which no suits were brought to judge powers I 1 consented to the compromise because of theun of the result of the litigation I 1 understood the street railway franchise would soon expire and as the city officers were not friendly to the it could be made of little or no in a short time mr richards testified lam one of the attorneys for the church in the suit by the government the petition for compromise filed in the supreme court on july 9 contained all there was there was not much compromise in the amter compromise means giving and by both parties but in this case we did all the giving and the government did all the taking it was forced upon us one item of set tl ement was the taking of for what was left of the in personal property that was transferred to tho stake associations the amount ws to be in full satisfaction of transfers the compromise as you call it involved no conditions with the receiver in june arranged with the attorney general at bearing 01 ahe case in the supreme court of the united states when the final decree should be obtained the attorney general wanted the case advanced as well as ourselves the reason we turned over so much property was to got a final decree we turned over property that they could not get and never would nave got but to obtain a final decree we turned over more than they were entitled to mr peters wanted worth of personal property but when I 1 came to investigate we only had left we finally agreed on a statement of facts was made as a basis for the do iee I 1 understood that that was final as to that property inasmuch as we had turned over all the property 0 athe corporation and more we were to have a final decree 1 wanted that decree and if I 1 had not expected it I 1 would have opposed the turning over of the property I 1 have my idea as to the scope of the final decree it was not a part of the understanding that the receiver of the united states could follow other property it was not the understanding that as the property was turned over the receiver would continue to pursue property alleged to belong to the church no agreement was made on that I 1 dont know that I 1 would like to say whether under the decree there could be a further pursuit of the property oae pro vision of the decree was the continuing of the receivership I 1 had no understanding der standing as to the effect of that I 1 did not suppose other property would be pursued because w had no more I 1 understood that it was to be the end of litigation I 1 expected the final decree to be the end of the litigation the obtaining of the decree was the condition of surrendering abo property on this basis I 1 consented to the settlement there was no compromise they arbitrarily demanded certain property and we had to accede to get the decree they did not beem to want a final decree they were after property property I 1 was the only OHM who mentioned final decree 1 mot mr peters in washington in uly 1888 in the presence of solicitor general jenks the items of tho settlement were approved and he understood the property was surrendered only for the purpose of getting tile final decree wo tailed the matter ever fully As to the letter mr young and I 1 wrote to receiver dyer as cu for compensation 1 remember the circumstances after the corn sensation pensa tion question was referred to fudge sprague mr dyer asked me how much I 1 thought he should have I 1 said I 1 had not thought of it but said that probably it be affy samo as an executor of an estate 1 told him did not know afterwards mr dyer came to me again and said he was going east and would like to have our ideas on the subject asked him what he would like he said he had the opinions of business men placing the figure above what he wanted he said would suit him I 1 said I 1 could not say without seeing an clients anything on the subject 1 promised to see them ho came again for my answer but I 1 had not seen my clients I 1 told him I 1 wo old notify him of the result as he was going away that night I 1 consulted with mr young and some of the defendants and the result was that letter I 1 said to my clients that I 1 thought the charge was excessive but it would do no good for us to object I 1 thought the government would object and that the matter would be left with the court I 1 wrote the letter on the theory that the court would fix his campen sati we did not consent to the corn sensation pensa tion but agreed not to object to the amount I 1 expressly stated that 1 would not consent because acon science would not approve of it mr dyer said he thought he should haat so much and wanted us to say yes 01 no I 1 did not propose to say yes ana considered it would make no differ j ence whether or not we said no I 1 communicated to sheeks su hawlins our conclusion had no fear of the court being mislead for I 1 felt certain the government would object to the amount I 1 was confident that the matter would be carefully sifted but not necessarily on the evidence before the examiner I 1 did not think the government would sit quietly by and see that amount appropriated or that the court would grant it and I 1 dont will yet I 1 think the charge so excessive on its face that it will not be allowed there was no proposition about the compensation of the attorneys have heard mr young say he had conversed on the question but the receivers attorneys never told me what they considered their services worth when I 1 consulted with my clients about the receivers compensation pensa tion mr young was present I 1 do not know that he was present on each occasion for I 1 did not coe them all at one time to judge mcbride at the conference in washington mr dyer was not present there were solicitor general jenks col broadhead mr peters and myself to judge marshall I 1 never conversed with the receiver about pursuing property after the final decree was entered there was no understanding with the receiver I 1 talked with mr peters mr dyer may have been present once when wo were discussing the property to judge mcbride this consultation was with mr peters as receivers counsel be wanted in property I 1 told him we could not furnish it and that he could not gather spilt water he got out of us more than he should it was arbitrary and unjust and I 1 shall always regard it so it was that or litigation forever that they crowded upon us it was no compromise can tell you but taking that to which they had no right bat wo worked to get a final decree so as to have the matter adjudicated in the higher couric |