Arizona republican., 1910-10-04
ALL BIDS ARE
 TURNED 1 DOWN N \ No Sale of Sewer Bonds ie Made By Council i WILL FIGHT HE SUIT H.! No Bids Will Be Advertised
 For Until Litigation Now
 Pending Has Been Dis
 posed Of-Other Business
 Before Fathers.

After deciding to fight to the last ditch the suit recently filed by the ! Phoenix Sewer x Drainage company against the city, the council last night I rejected all the bids submitted for the l authorized sewer bond issue of $35,- | 900. No more bids will be called for till the suit is settled
 I This decision was reached after a i long -draWn-out argument in the coun- i cil chamber and an executive session | lasting an hour or more. It was pret- | ty well established that the city could
 not expect to sell the bond issue while j litigation affecting its legality is pend | ing. One bond buyer made the state
 ment that should the sale of the bonds be delayed until after Arizona becomes
 a state they will not be legal, for the ! city of Phoenix, State of Arizona, can not issue bonds authorized for the city of Phoenix, Territory of Arizona.
 It was the regular monthly meeting
 of the council and the first matter to ! be taken up was the opening of bids i on the bonds. Four bids were submit ted. Briefly they were as follows: Union Savings Bank X Trust com | pan, Cincinnati, $329,225.93 w. R. Compton Bond & Mortgage Co, St. Louis, par with premium of s6, 792.30, with s1000 added premium if purchaser be permitted to name the Phoenix bank in which funds realized from sale of bonds be deposited until expended.
 Prevalent Bank & Trust company, Cincinnati, par and premium of $4,-
 335.75.
 Eannear & Board, Cincinnati, par When the bids had been read City
 Attorney T. J. Prescott asked the council to reject them all, since they
 were all conditional upon the litiga- ton pending being settled before ac- ceptance of the bonds The Union Savings Bank & Trust company bid i laid particular stress upon this point Thomas N. Dysart, representing the
 Compton company, declared that his bid did not contain any such clause. All he asked was that his company's attorney approve the bonds, and he agreed that the attorney give his opinion within sixty days of date of delivery into the lawyers hands of the bonds and necessary records to prove their legality. To this the city 1 attorney replied that the other bidders l had been only a little more frank in | their statements; that MT. Dysart's l words meant the same thing in the | long run.
 A strong plea for the acceptance of ] his bid was made by Dysart. He | pointed out to the council the danger | Of delaying until Arizona is a state | Then the city's bonds will be taxable | whereas bonds issued by territorial | cities are exempt Naturally they will 1 not bring as high a price as they will ] now. He declared that after Arizona enters the union Phoenix will have i difficulty in selling five per cent bonds at par, whereas a premium was being offered for bonds drawing only | four and a half per cent. He also doubted if, after statehood is at tained, the city can legally issue bonds authorized when this still was terri tory.
 After considerable more discussion the council went into executive ses- sion. When the fathers came out of