Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-11-18
DELAYED HIS REPLY

zones did not immediately reply
to the request for the additional 90
days but IL Is understood that he
tclcgraphed TO other persons urging
them 10 act IN the matter Of the eN-
tension To the option As the limit
OF tho period that expired with Mon
day last approached 60 became owl
dent that Jones would not grant the
proposed extension. II Is said that
tho reason is found I'm the fact that
Jones had learned that hc could not
raise the 100000 among tho people
who were acting with him within the
contract period. and that he was
seeking to raise IL in other directions.
He was playing foT time Ct was
thought In order % ascertain whether
Il would be wiser 10 lose $50. 900
rather than try TO produce the $780,
COO
In the meantime &c had been inti-
mated TO the L. S. J. people that there
was another possible purchaser, in
the person Of r. I. Day g. Company.
Of New York, in the field and anxious
Co become a bidder for the Utah SEE
Curities. 70 was also intimatcd that
the New York firm would pay "a
slightly larger sum IN cash than had
been offered by Jones. When 70 be-
came evident that Jones would not
grant the 20-day extension, the me-
gotiations with Day & Company. were
opened. The sale. for 100000 gold.
followed. and the $4,000 which
Jones had paid was forfeited"
WHAT JONES SAYS.
with regard to that story. I would
say that 1 believe 70 was written eith-
er by the Bell company or at their
request There are some errors in a..
but 'hey are not serious enough 10
occasion remark.
when Mr. Odell and / were N
Rochester as tho representatives OF
the local syndicate. we went 10 them
Just before the option expiring Oct. ~
was up and we requested an extension
until March 49, We presented with
our request a draft for 100000 10 be
forfeited in the event that the option
lapsed. The afternoon the PROPOSE
ton was made TO them. members OF the
executive committees or boards Of di-
rectors of the Stromberg- Carlson Telc-
phone company and the United States
Independent Telephone company met
together TO discuss the proposal OF Mr.
Odeu and myself for the extension OF
the option. At the conclusion OF the
meeting we were assured that the eN-
tension would be granted They IN
formed Mr. Odell and myself however,
that there was not a quorum OF the q.
l. 4 directors i'm Rochester and that IA
would require some little time i'm which
to gather them for the meeting 10 eN-
tend the option. We readily agreed to
the delay necessary. Accompanied by
letter. We placed our draft for 500
600 In the hands OF Mr., Taylor stating
the condition that II the extension was
not granted o. should be returned TO as.
The time limit for the consideration Of
our proposition was agreed upou as
Nov. q. Later the directors ca@-,e 10 u6
with the request that we extend the |
time until Nov. a. We did not feel ike /
letting them spar for time ia that man /
ner with our $4,000 tied up and we |
refused TO extend the time, The neat /
we learned was that our draft HAD /
been returned and the. extension Of the |
option refused by NOV l. Il. company. |
the holding company Of our interests /
with other Independent companies I'M |
rCrcste.