Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1902-02-22

| part of May. 1t was so submitted at al
opening meeting of the council, and Mr.
j. H. Devenney then asked me my opinion
of the document, inquiring if it was 'sal
right" My reply was inasmuch as / had
drawn the contract for Mr.. Fowler, as his
attorney. at a time when | was under nc
obligations to the village, 1 did not then
care to advise the council as to the matter
Mr.. .Devenney has been kind enough to as
sure me that he remembers this question
by him and answer by me substantially as
| have here given them. At this meeting
of the council, no action was taken on the
contract. understood that the council de-
sired to consider the contract by some other
meeting when there was no other business
before them and thatin the meantime the
Individual councilmen would have chance
to examine the agreement or proposed
agreement at their leisure.
At a subsequent meeting the contract
was again placed in my possession, the
same having been more or less emasculated
and altered by members of the council, for
the purpose Of engrossing the document,
and preparing it in permanent form and in
duplicate. that it might be properly exc
cuted by Mr.. Fowler and the officers of the
village. / was instructed to reWrite it
just as it was placed in my hands and that
did, and nothing more. Having done
this, again submitted the three drafts of
the contract Zone for Fowler, one for the
village and one for the recorders minutes)
at meeting of the council The contract
was there put upon it's final passage so to
speak, was read, clause by clause, and no
objection found except to that clause or por-
ton which would require the village to pay
for repairs. That clause was objected to,
and ordered stricken out, whereupon eli
minated the repair clause by drawing
lines through the same in the usual way.
This was done in the presence of the. coun-
Gil, and then and there struck out in the
way indicated, the repair clause in all three
drafts of the contract, all of them then be- !
ing on the table before me.
Now it is possible that the council, or the
individual members thereof, intended that
the clause relating to paying Mr.. Fowler
same time. But did not so understand
their instructions. On the contrary, un-
derstood that it was simply that portion of
the contract relating to the payment for re-
pairs, which was objectionable, and that |
was stricken out. That the other was not
stricken out does not reflect on me but on I
the character of the instructions then given
to me, which, as I now remember them,
did not refer to nor include the portion re-
Iating to extensions.
After this meeting of the council, the I
contracts, with the exception of the copy
Intended for the minutes, which was given
% Mr.. Burpee, remained in my possession
or two weeks or more, and my recollec-
ion is that either Mr.. Fowler or Mr.. Bur
bee came for them, and took them away,
With the intention of getting them properly
signed and the matter out of the way
Certain it is that / did not submit the con-
ract to Mr.. Bevans or make any represen-
ations to him concerning it. | was not
present when he signed it nor did know
when it was signed, except asI have been
informed on that matter by others.
There is another error in the statement
Contained in the Tribune. The council !
lid not direct me to draft new entraei
long the lines of the old contrae iff NJ
Fowler. The old contract WAS lised as
basis for the new one, so far as kpew,