Omaha daily bee., 1884-12-12
THE MAYORS BILL.
Some Fresh Facts About the Drawing
Of The Warrants,
why He Returned Them,

Il IBCOIlDblbbu lOI ulb III aAu III
selling $4,000 of city bonds has been
pretty thoroughly aired. The BEE was
the first to give in full the strong backing
which the claim for pay had both In
justice and in law, the names OF many
substantial citizens being affixed to the
documents approving the claim. In the
bond. selling business the BEE has never
endorsed the neglect of the officials In
letting the bonds lie In the vaults with.
out any effort to sell until the emergency
came when they had to be sold in a
hurry. 1t has never approved the ''star
chamber" session of the council in the
mayors back room, at which time a CON.
mlttee was secretly chosen to go east and
5000 OF the city money appropriated to
pay expenses. 1t has never believed
that the council chose the best way or
selected the best men for selling the
bonds, but all this having been done, the
mayor and his two conferes having been
employed by the council to do the bust
ness, 1t seems that 1t can now do no less
than pay some reasonable sum for the
work, they thus ordered done, especially
as the mayor has done the work much
better than 1t was supposed he would do
it. Had some banker or broker been
employed to sell the bonds, the city
would certainly have had to pay some
reasonable sum, and the bonds being
sold, by the mayors effort, as the other
members of the committee testify, there
seems no reason why he should not re-
ceive what Is just. Still, as this pay, and
the expenses of the committee mus be
drawn out of the paving fund, and the
largest part of it paid by those who have
the paving to pay for, these are the citi-
zens who should have most to say In the
matter, and the fact that many of them
declare that the mayor should be paid 1t
Is a streng backing of the claim. The le'
gality of the claim lis vouched for by at
torneys who stand high at the bar here,
and amounts are suggested by careful
business men and bankers who ought to
know what the services are worth. These
amounts varied from 81, 200 to SO, 500,
and the mayors bill was endorsed by five
out of six of the aldermen.
There was apparently one bad break
made by the mayor, that was the draw
ing of 1895 in warrants, In settlement of
the bill before the bill had been ordered
paid by the council. 1t looked as if he
intended to get the money anyway, and
indicated that he expected "a howl"
from some quarters. The BEE has al
ways protested against this sly, star
chamber way of doing. 1t is public
business, and if honest should be done
above board and daylight, and if not
honest, should not be done at all. A
public, but the facts about the drawing
of the warrants for 1905 may be relied
upon, as follows: The council was to
meet Monday evening. About 4 o'clock
in the afternoon the mayor called upon
the auditor and showed him the bill, ap.
proved by five councilmen, together with
the approval of the large number of
citizens and tax payers, whose names
have been already published In TIRE BEE.
The mayor wanted the auditor to draw
three $500 warrants and. one 800, making
1895, in settlement of the claim
at a less amount than the lowest
sum named by any of the aldermen
or citizens who had signed the papers.
The auditor declined to draw the orders,
as the council was to meet In a few
hours, the bill could then be formally al
lowed, and he would then draw the war
warrants. The mayor urged that the
auditor was in the habit of drawing war
rants in payment of bills certified to by
one alderman, and here he was Directing
to paying one certified to by five alder
men. The bill being out of the regular
run of bills, and unique in some respects,
the auditor still declined to draw the
warrants, seeing no necessity for doing
so, as the council was to meet that even
ing. The mayor assured him that the
council would order the bill paid that
evening, and it seemed evident hat such
would be the case, as all but one alder
man (Siedentopf had signed the bill.
Finally, the mayor explained that if the
ordered the bill, Mr.. Scott or some other
!, of ''the kickers" would get out an
injunction before morning restraining the
auditor from issuing the warrants. To
avoid the possibility of an injunction he
t wanted the orders issued then. The
auditor finally consented to do 30, with
the agreement on the part of the mayor,
that if the council did. not order the
l warrants drawn he should return them
to the auditor. That evening to the sur
prise of many the council referred the
bill to a committee. The next morning
! the mayor, true to his promise, returned
the warrants to the auditor, who marked
3 them void.
: The mayor is not entitled to any
special credit n returning the warrants
= as it only on that condition that he
could get the warrant drawn, and he
certainly has laid himself open to crit;
, cisn for having had them drawn at all
until the council as a body had
! in open meeting, ordered the payment
which they had individually approved.
The claim for recompense seems a just
r one, and it is 30 strongly endorsed by
good citizens, that it shall have strength
enough to have stood openly In the
5 council and defied threatned injunctions.
If an injunction was made to stick, and
[ the courts should decide the claim unjust
and illegal, 1t ought to fail. The
mayor made a mistake, and has fortunate
ly predidiced the claim by his own action.
He was doubtless led to the mistake by
a desire to outwit anyone who might try
to get out an injuntaioD, but this wal a
waste of time for the treasurer can be
just as well enjoined from paying the
warrant as the auditor from issuing them,
and the friends of the claim would have
lnraferred IN haya had tha hill taka a