Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1898-02-17
MORE ABOUT THE BOND DEAL


MORE ABOUT THE BOND DEAL.
In our history OF the bond deal with
l.. A. Bigger last week, we have found
but one mistake and so far as we ,haVe
learned, but one statement of fact Ia
which the most buulptiOus Of republi-
cans have taken exceptions. In our ar
tical we stated that the bid of the in
vestors represented by Mr.. Cain was
four and One.half and was three.
fourths per cent lower than Bigger's bid
That statement was made from mem
Ory of our conversation with MIR. Cain.
We find it should have been four and
three fourths per cent, making a diff
erence of one-half per cent in favor of
Gains bid. This enc half per cent,
however, in the whole course of the
bonds, amounts to S1I $50.
None of the republican papers have
answered the article nor in any way
referred to it. While itmsde consider
able commOtiOn yet with the exception
of the one error above stated, no one
has venturpd to attack it. This silence
IN effect admits the truth of it.
Every one, in the least acquainted
with the facts, agrees that there was
no more necessity for paying MIR. Big
ger any commission for the transaction
than there would be for paying some
agent rent on your own land. The law
was framed plainly for the purpose of
permitting the treasurer to perform
these functions which were delegated
to Mr.. Bigger as agent.
While In Pawnee county Saturday
we were shown letters the county
treasurer had received from bond inves
tors offering terms for refunding $40,
600 of bonds issued under the same law
as those it is proposed to refund in this
county. The county commissioners
had instructed him to correspond to
that purpose and he had the matter as
intellegently before the commissioners
as it is in this county. No one was to
receive a cent as compensation from
the county. He told us that some of
the agents for the investors informed
him that they received dollar thOus-
and from their principals on the face
of the bonds for making the invest
ment
Is it not an anomalous condition
that both parties to a transact n should
be willing to pay commission? That
county should pay commission for
refunding when bond buyers are willing
to pay a small commission for buying
is an outrage. What is it then when a
commission amounting to several
Thousand dollars is to De paid to an
agent Of the county, while the agent
of the bond investors does all the work
as is the care under this contract.
The board has not yet disposed Ofthe
matter and will not now till their next
meeting, March 7th. At the last hour
an Abilene man submitted two bids
verbally and asked to have time to re.
duce them to typewriting. So the
whole question was laid over. His bids
were, first, for bonds at Ave per cent to
run thirty years with an option to pay
$1,000 each year after the first ten years,
he to pay cost Of registering, printing,
and costs at the fiscal agency estimated
ALTOGETHER at SlS5. The second bid was
for AZ per cent bonds to run thirty years
payable after twenty years; he to pay
cost of printing estimated at $55.
The board now shows a willingness
to accept the lowest bid but the ques-
tion of whether they will pay Bigger's
stipulated in the contract
suit will not be determined
until later. However, there seems no
doubt but that they will insist on lifting
S20, 900 worth of bonds with the money
they have in the sinking fund. We find
on examining the minutes of the COM
proceedings that a contract
similar to this was entered into by the
two years ago, with Mr..
Bigger to refund $4,000 of bonds.
They were at that time payable the
same as these and were refunded at 5
per cent, due in twenty years with an
option to paw after ten years. What
Mr.. Bigger's profits we're in that deal
we cannot say. The fact that the con-
tract was entered with him without re-
ceiving any bids from other parties, is
perhaps sufficient evidence that it was
a deal in which Mr.. Bigger's profits
were large, in which case of course the
county paid them.
Stock in the Standard Oil Trust has