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


court throughout the whole of
Tuesday was taken up with the in
junction proceedings brought by
Joseph Bachus against the city to
restrain the municipality from is
sung $4,000 worth of serial bonds
to BoIgcr, MOsser and Williamson,
OF Chicago, at par, with the pay
1nent of $3.50 by the city for
printing and legal and other ex-
prnses in connection with the issue
ui the bonds.
Attorney n. B. Arnold, arguing
for the plaintiffs in the action,
claimed thai $3.50 was sufficient
for the expenses incident to the
issue OF the bonds and that the
remainder, or $4,000, was in the
nature of bonus.
Attorney Luther G.. Harris, spec
ial council for the city, denied
this statement and claimed that
this amount was wholely necessary
for the proper and expeditions car
rying out of the legal and other
work. During the course of his
remarks he said that it was necrs-
sary TO examine the records and
60 back as far as the original con-
stitlhion of the state nd the earli
est records of The city in order to
secure the validity of the bonds.
The attorney for the city con-
tended that the real intention of
the injunction proceedings was
not TO save the city $,75O, but to
prevent the purchase of the water
and light plant by the city. He
mentioned the great importance OF
the undertaking TO the city and the
citizens.
The most sensational moment of
the hearing was when Attorney N.
B. Arnold made the allegation that
''the city clerk had no receipt nor
contract" at the time that inquir-
ics were made by the injunction
attorneys. Mr.. Arnold said in
court that the clerk had said to
him you have the envelope, that
isrecript enough" and this was
right in d. d. Morgan's office" said
Mr.. Arnold. Judge Martin Hughes
thertupon warned the attorney
that this was quest ioning sworn
stat. ment made by Judge Bert Frs-
ler. Mr.. Arnold did not retract
from what he had previously said.
THE bond+bidders in these
bonding games just about tell the
council that they want so much as
a honus,' said Mr.. Arnold during
the proceedings, but at this point
the court reminded the attorney
that he was going outside the rec
ords. \ warm tilt followed when
the attorney replied that council
for the defense has gone outside
the records and am giving him
little of his own medic ine.'
The main contention of the plain x
tiffs in the action is that the city
in accepting the bid of Bolger,
Mosser and Williaman for the $3.50,
900 water and light bonds and
agreeing TO pay the sum of $6.75O
for printing of bonds and legal ex-
ppnsps, were giving al illegal bonus
for the purchase Of the securities.
Attorney Harris laid great stress
on the fact that the $G,120 would
not be paid until the bonds had
been printed and delivered and
the full sum of $45O,000 was in the
hands of the city. He stated en-
phatically that the $3.50 was not
& bonus but a legitimate charge
for legal fees incident to the in
cident to the investment of sc
large a sum Of money.
The argument was also made III;
the city of Virginia would lose fro'
$4,000 to $4,000 if they were re-
strained from issuing the $i5O,NN
bonds.
Te main part Of the argument
we're directed at whether the
charge Of $3.50 by the successful
bidders was fair and reasonable
or if same were of the nature of {
bonus to the bond company fol
buying the city's securities.
The attorney for the city stated
that the city saved more than $50,
600 and possibly as much as $40,00
by issuing the serial bond in place
of the long term bond. He re.
minded the court that there wer
between 5000 and 1000 coupons t.
be printed for the serial bond
and that the records had to be ex
amined and the bonds printed an
the money delivered by the 1st da
Of April under the original con
tract with the city. Considerabl
discussion as to the cost of tn
ovomiD NJ inn of poonp6c fnl1Oxxox