The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1901-06-29

5 Correct n. &
To the editor Of the DAs1xl

To the editor Of the DAsdf tfuBsl
| LICAN:-- ss
| i desire TO correct a recent state.
ment or intimation made In your ps.a
fper TO TIE effect that the eppsrept
loss TO New Castle County, ot about
d, 900 In premium on the issue oft15,
900 Of bonds for the completion Of the
New Aastle County workhousc was
due to : .ault or oversight ON my
part as the Attorney Of the Levy
Court. >.
The asr Of the Legislature, author
zing the levy Court to make the s75.
600 wori>nouse loan, was prepared and
drawn by the New Castle County
Workhouse Commission, by and
through Its attorney and neither the
Levy Court nor had anything what
ever to do with it. The act was never
submitted to the Levy Court nor to
me nor was 1t ever seen or examined
by me until after the adjournment OF
the Legislature and the Act had be-
come law.
The Act In question, providing
that the loan shall be payable "on or
before" April l, 1921, l am of the
opinion that the Levy Court has the
right and power to fix any time to
call In and pay the said bonds provd.
ed the time fixed is ''on or before''
April l., 1921.
In order, therefore, to have the
Levy Court contract with the pro.
srectiye purchasers Of the bonds
that the bonds would not be called In
before 1921, thereby securing for the
county maximum premium on the
bonds, prepared and upon my advice
a resolution was passed by the Levy
Court fixing the year 1921 as the time
to call in and pay for the bonds.
With that resolution standing on
the minutes OF the Levy Court, this
Levy Court nor its successors could
no t call in the bonds before the time
fixed in the solution without violat.
ing its contract and agreement with
the purchasers of the bonds. :.
Whether or not the holders OF the
bonds could demand payment OF
them "before" 1921 was matter
with which did not concern myself
for the reason that If the purchasers
Of the bonds paid large premium
for them on the basis OF their run.
ming 20 years. 1t is not probable
that they would as k or demand pay.
ment before the time fixed by the
Levy Court to pay them, as by so do.
ng they would forfeit the premium
paid for the bonds. A.a
1t seems that the bidders for the
Workhouse Bonds did not take the
same view Of this matter as | did,
and as the premium offered was only
1878, at least $4,000 less than should
md wonld have been offered had the
Act IN question made the bonds pay
able in the year 1921, leaving out the
harmful words ION or before"
Acting upon my advice, the Levy
Court repeated and rescinded the
resolution previously passed and
above referred to before the bids Of
Tered were expected. Had this &C.
ION not been taken, the Levy Court,
IN my opinion, would have been pre-.
vented from calling in the $4,000
oan before 1921 and would thereby
nave lest the right to refund the
oan within two years and also lost
It least $4,000 in premium. The re-
ports on the street and in the news.
)apers have inlimated that the Levy
Court, or more directly, i, as its at.
orney, was responsible for the &C.
ectiye Act and the loss to the Coun-
y Of IS, 900 and it is to correct such
IN erroneous and unjust report that
take this opportunity to make the
Ibove explanation of the matter so
ar as l Or the Levy Court had any
hug to do with it.
Very truly yours,
HORACE G. KNOW LIS.