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

This bid is made subject to an al
lowance of Six Thousand Seven hun
dred and fifty ($6,75o.o0) for expenses
AND services.
A check for $4,000. is deposited as
DIN evidence OF good faith, to apply on
this pure base price of said bonds, to
be returned to us provided we are
not the successful bidders
Bolger, MOsser & Willaman,
20 South La Sale ST.,
Chicago, Illinois,
BY w. II. H. Cash.
State of Minnesota, County Of. st.
Louis.-ss.
Joseph Backus, being first duly
sworn, says that he is the Plaintiff in
the above entitled action; that he has
read the foregoing reply and knows
the contents thereof and the same is
true of his own knowledge, except as
to the matters therein stated on infor-
nation and belief and as to those
matters he verify believes it true.
JOSEPH BACKUS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 4th day Of April, 1913.
NORVILL e. ARNOLD,
Notary Public. St. Louis Co., Mimi
My commission expires Jan. %, 1917.
(SeaD
:Aftitiavits OF Hon. Bert Fesler and
Hon. VI. 4. Murphy.
State of Minnesota, County of St.
Louis
trict.
Joseph Rackus,
Plaintiff,
City Of Virginia.: A. D. Heritage,
Michael Boylan, George Harvey,
Charles w. Lundstrom, Adolph KEEL
Ter. Fred J. NOLAN, Conrad Matt
son. r. J. McGhee, and Dan Coffey,
aldermen composing the council of
said City Of Virginia; NJ. A. Murphy,
Mayor; A. E. Bickford, City Clerk
and VIM. B. Pratt, Treasurer, of
said City of Virginia,
noforHon&c
state Of Minnesota, County of ST..
Louis.-ss.
Bert Fesler. being first duly sworn,
upon his oath says: That he is the
learned special counsel" of the City
of Virginia referred to in the Reply
in the above matter.
Affiant further states that he knew,
prior to January I, 1913, that the
manner in which certain Of the pro-
cedure, resulting. in the sale Of the
bonds under consideration, had been
done, both prior and subsequent to
affiant's connection Herewith, was ir-
regular and contrary to some provi-
sions of law; that such part of such
procedure. as was taken after atlantis
connection herewith, that was ir-
regular was due to the fact that no
appropriate procedure had been pro-
Vided by law that could be consist
emily carried out, on account of GER
tain conflicting provisions in the law it,
self; that nevertheless such procedure
was followed by affiant as would pro-
gress the general plan of acquiring
the water and light plant, in accord
ance with the will of the people Of
Virginia, as it had been expressed at
the polls; that all such action was
taken with the fact in mind that the
legislature of the State of Minnesota
was to convene early in January of
the year 1913. and an appropriate
curative act could then be passed that
would enable the city officials Of Vir-
einia to carry out the will of the
people Of Virginia, as had by that
time been expressed in two elections.
and at the same time obviate a de-
lay that might jeopardize the compile
ton Of the purchase of the water and
light plant before April /, 1913. That
such curative act was passed on or
about January %, 1913, and the same
was sufficient for all purposes con-
templated by any one connected with
said matter up to that time. That
about the time of the passage of such
curative act, one John D. Lamont. a
prominent and able business man of
the City Of Virginia, was appointed
president Of a water and light COM
mission which was to have charge OF
the management Of said water and
light plant when the same should be
acquired by said city, and said La
mont thereafter proposed the so-called
serial bond scheme Of Issuing said