They would not accept the new Terms.
The following correspondence, which explains itself, will be of interest to all who hoped to see the new industry located upon the Everett lot.
Boston, August 11th, 1893
George S. Winslow and Committee of Norwood.
Gentlemen:—We will sell you the George Everett Estate as heretofore specified, for the sum of sixteen thousand five, hundred dollars ($16,500.00) and take a mortgage payable as soon as the committee may elect, interest at 8 percent, payable semi-annually; the committee to give good and satisfactory guarantee.
We to have the use of the Home Square, including the large and small houses, stable and land just about the same, for a term not to exceed five veers, at an annual rental of three hundred dollars.
We to retain the right to drain the so-called Webb lot through the above estate, and to enter on and repair said drain.
We agree to pay our assessment.
Kindly notify us whether you accept the above within a few days and oblige,
Yours truly, Julia D. Evebett & Sons.
W. E. E.
Norwood, Aug. 15, 1893
Mr. W. E. Everett,
Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 11th of August is received, and read in committee, at a meeting on Monday evening, and after due consideration of its contents, the secretary was directed to reply, that the increased price you put upon the property in question and other conditions named, are such that the committee do not feel justified in making the purchase.
Yours respectfully,
Geo. Hill, Secretary.
On behalf of the committee, chosen by the town to procure new business.
The terms of the bond given by Mrs. Everett, June 6, which expired Aug. 6, were § 15,000 cash, minus a commission of 2 1/2 percent, brokerage. On account of the stringency in the money market the committee were unable to raise the entire sum within the time specified, and asked for an extension of the time, the chairman of the committee offering to be responsible for the money as soon the banks resume accommodations.
This proposition was refused, and the above terms were made by Mrs. Everett and Sons, which the committee were unanimous in refusing, believing that the former sum was a liberal price for the estate.