The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1913-04-11

In supplementary hearing on the
suit Of Joseph Rackus to enjoin the
City of Virginia from paying the
| $3.50 asked and stipulated in the bid
Of Bolger, Mosser 4 Willaman as at
torney fees and to defray the expenses
Of the printing of the bond issue Of
s45O.OOO of light and water bonds,
held before Judge Hughes in district
court Monday, the plaintiff was
granted the relief asked-Attorney l..
G. Harris of Duluth, special counsel
and Attorney Morgan. city attorney,
liling final stipulatio that no por-
ton Of the sum named should be
paid to the bonding company provided
the plaintiff would accept Of such pro-
position as a full and complete settle
ment of the matter.
Tnasmuch as the payment or pro-
posed payment of the amount named,
$3.50, or y per cent on the total
issue of bonds. WAS the only objection
filed by the plaintiff against the carry
ing out of the contract with the city
and elimination OF the purchase, At
torney n. b. Arnold, representing the
plaintiff. made formal acceptance Of
the terms, thereby saving to the tax
payers of the city the entire sum OF
$3.50 which would have been paid
the bond buyers by the city council
under the terms OF the bid as origin
ally filed.
Under the stipulation of the proffer
the firm of Eolger, Mosser Il Villa
man is given ten days in which to
accept Of the bonds at full face value,
with accrued interest up to the Gate
OF delivery, failing in which the city
council will he compelled to readver-
tise for bids for the bond issue.
The entire pleadings in the case,
showing every phase of the cause as
presented to the court including the
Reply, Affidavits, Motion and Notice
of Motion and Order to Show Cause
us filed by the plaintiffs attorneys,
Arnold 4 Pickering. the affidavit of
the Hon. Bert Fesler, the learned
special counsel" for the city. the af-
tida\it Of the Hon. VI. \. Murphy,
mayor, the three separate offers Of
the defendant-the city of Virginia
for settlement of the case, and the
order issued by Judge Martin Hughes
the premises, are all considered OF
sufficient importance to demand their
reproduction for the perusal of the in
terested taxpayer of Virginia.. that
each may read and judge for himself
Of the merits OF the case: and should
ne in his own mind decide the merits
of the cause were with the side of
the city he would have a different
conception of the legal points than
,
ana special counsel as evidenced by
their method of retreat in prufferins
Of offering the plaintiff full and COM
plete balm as asked by entirely elm
the $3.50 originally awarded the
'ond buyers by the city council and
the use Of the taxpayers Of the city
his sum in it's entirety.
AS to the probability OF the firm
Of Bolger, Mosser & Willaman accept
ing the bond issue at full face value
With accrued interest to date of de-
livery, we have little doubt. But the
average citizen as he reads will likely
commune with himself as to why, if
the firm can now afford to give $3.50
more for the bonds together with ad-
late Of the filing Of the bond bid.
they could not give or did not offer to
take the issue at full face value at
he time of submitting their PROPOSE
ton for the consideration of the city
council. The result of such commun-
ing may lead to different conclusions
IOntthe part Of various citizens, but a
poll of the vote would doubtless show
n great majority had arrived al,
practically the same viewpoint.
The same sized melon will permit
| Of larger pieces for a family Of six
! than for a family of twelve.