New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-12
OPINIONS ON BOND BIDS.
.ncrprANcE OF THE HIGHEST SYN
dictate Offer.
,roALrrY PASSED UPON by THE CORPORA
CONTROLLER CLOSE THE CONTRACT
AN ADVERSE OPINION FROM
Ey-Jt-pGE DILLON.

AN ADVERSE OPINION FROM
Ex-yupGE DILLON.
.u.- Coler Yesterday received from the Cor
rot,on Counsel opinion as to the ieea'i's y,
- ,,d made on Monday by Nermiiye I" 20. anu
ynr Loeb & Co. for city bonds. MI "nae"
"a zone TO Saratoga and the opinion was w''''e"
a 80 assistant. Mr. Connolly. but there had been a
..,sp,,ation on the subject before MI. Whe'e"
-, away. and his views were unders,oou 70 pe
N We IN the opinion. The opinion IS IN
efs % allow the Controller TO accept the h.sn-
~. syndicate bic for the entire issue OIL bonus
onn,ns 10 nearly sls.0oa.0co. Following is 'he
opinion: ,,,,r,oa,, ton he,r-
SIR "a a" Auaust q stating that at the opening OF
ins 10 60 es2 &c Of 81, per cent bonds on the
S O1 v.r whcs you CO.. n' sSd Kuhn
SSe a, ocs subject to the approval OF the iesa,y
q ne ProSuce Exchange Trust Company and others.
~ ia, "a. without qualifications ora,,r
You a soSd s'A on the bid Of vermilye Co
.ns Loeb from the president nS ,Ss
tn as.r from the secretary Of the Hamilton Trust
COMPANY ,,so received further communication
from ne You bearing date August TO- ,nSlosins two
letters one from vermye CO ana me MTnn aep
=, an and letter from T. Beai. ESQ yce,presi-
Gent Of the Produce Exchange Trnss ComyPans
WIZ VIZ Us attorneys. Dillon Hubbard; that said
attorneys will be able 10 t"fnsn s 20 one not sty
n Gp p Ocock on The lin inst which opinion the
Company viii transmit 20 you on Its RECEIPT; and
It's sta, stated Co ire O'a Oh 'e'"'''7 w. anu
Kgn lynn lid is made subject to the approval Of tbs
,.',v ~ the issues by counsel"
legs ss bids of the Produce EXCHANGE Trust Com
psny and Hamilton Trust Company are uncon-
nave given to this matter amount Of con-
seeIs,Gno yo can accept the bid OF vernilye &
r.; and Kuhn. Loeb & Co. for the following rea-
sons, y, course true. that II the clause in the
bid In reference TO obtaining the apPISvs OF eo9 3n
he hsdcr in the position of arbitrator between the
the G and the bidder
.r Tn,s an nSfq the 5 son:rSsd remit
s soaas 'aP IN question ses Sid ed by these gentle
ire sT UPON the making of the bid by vermilye & Co.
and Kuhn. Loeb CO. s 49,. a.o,s,ors o,' the
courts (see the case OF Eought VS. Williams ~
@ and cases there S , ee yhe aSe ths
eDt from the conei;on annexed by the law to tbs
, sale hi, 5p ID d SH nSt way way any
WI h0a IN MY that Gpp the bnds
h fact valid. they undoubtedly are: then an
epnon St S SDTnse om tbs Obligation to tax.
bonds because if in fact the bonls are valid coun-
SCI you'd h mssn no c Fn this form of bidding
witch is new in this city. though mucn useo as
IN,
iocalsties because II forms a bad precedent mas,
mnch as I, annexes apparent conditions 10 a PIG
tha. should be absolute. and to prevent any repeu,
ton NJ the difficulty which has now arisen would
,nnomreud In al! future sales OF bonds IN the
tsrms Of sale clause rec.ting that no Did other
Than an unconditional and absolute one Will be
7, annears from the letter OF Vermilye Co.. al
,saav referred TO- bearing date August 10. ina ;
ybaf 7 have before indicated as being the legal
ensct Of their bid is exactly the effect which they
az course their understanding Of the legal erect
Of their hid Is not conclusive, nor even conronlng
IN. decide the matter not upon the letter OF Ner-
miye 4 Co hut upon the bid Itself
As however under their letter, they announce
themselves as ready and willing 70 carry out their
rid absolutely | would suggest that yor promptly
notify them 10 do so, and so set In running the
ZINE within which they must comply with the
terms and conditions Of sale.
may state that have had opportunity OF con-
sulting the Corporation Counsel on this matter
and that be concurs with the views. hereinbefore
expressed.
Controller Coler also received from the produce
Exchange Trust Company opinion written by
ex-Jrdge Dillon the effect that the bids or the
other two syndicates which bid for the city bonds
could not be accepted because the checks which
accompanied them were subject to the same con-
dItions which attached &c the bid and therefore
tbs whole bid was not In compliance with the law.
The Controller did not decide yesterday to accept
either OF the bids. but he may make decision