Bisbee daily review., 1906-12-30
DILLON ID PASS On SEWER
 BONDS
Eminent Authority Names Fee He Will Charge-Council Will Consider Matter at Meeting Wednesday.

] It Is probable that at a meeting of i the city council which will take place ] Wednesday evening, the matter of the sewer bonds will be taken up, and some definite steps toward the con summation of this deal, which is most 1 important to the city, will be taken i Yesterday afternoon J. T. Hood, cash fer of the Miners & Merchants bank received from Judge Dillon. of New York. telegram stating the amount he would charge for an opinion on the bond issue, and Hood immediately communicated with Mayor Caven. i When seen last evening and asked concerning the matter Mayor Caver stated that Dillon had replied to the letter asking him about the amount be would charge, and the fee named by the eminent authority was reison able. Just what the amount was the mayor would not state until the mat ter was taken up by the Council at the meeting Wednesday, when it will be decided to refer the matter to Judge Dillon or not.
 | The reason for taking the matter up with Judge Dillon was, that the opin- ion rendered by the firm of Wood & ! Oakley, bond attorneys of Chicago, was so obviously opposed to the de cisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that it was decided to /, have an opinion rendered by a man who is recognized throughout the Unit. ed States as an authority on the sub ject.
 1 At the time the Chicago firm ren- l q hnfr Nfvxs~ st l.. prise. and a special meeting of the City Council, at which were present several prominent attorneys, and the topinion was discussed.
 | Woods opinion held tha: the bonds were invalid because at the election which was held for the purpose of as. certaining the wishes of the people on the issuance of the same, two-thirds of all the taxpayers and legal voters of the city had not voted affirmatively on the question, although two-thirds of the people who did vote favored the bond issue
 | City Attorney Merritt then took the floor and stated that he, while he re tspected the opinion of the banks at ltorneys, felt that he must hold the .other way, relying on the Supreme Court of the Territory, and the Su ipreme Court of the United States fol his support
 When the city of Tucson voted bonds several years ago, Merritt stat led. identically the same question wal traised. and the case WAS fought to the Supreme Court cf Arizona, where Judge Sloan rendered the decision which Merritt relied pnon--and-aa-.e. rrhe other justices agreed with him.
 In this opinion the court draws . distinction between the word "elec tor" as used in the act of congress under the provisions of which the cleo Ition was held, and the word voter" as used in the same act. The court de icided that an elector was one who has la right to vote, and a voter Is an cleo tor who uses his right to vote, and quotes the Supreme Court of the Unit ed States to support his view of the statute. Two-thirds of the voters a, the election under discussion voted affirmatively, and therefore the bonds were valid in that regard.
 Merritt then read the Limited States Supreme Court decision, proving con ciusively to every one present that his contention was correct.