Omaha daily bee., 1889-04-14
LINCOLN NEWS AND NOTES.
Joseph Burns Institutes Another
Suit on His Water Contract.
HE NOW PROMISES AN EXPOSE.
How the Matter was to Be En-
gineered Through the City
Council-A Depot Site
Sold.
LINCOLN BUREAU OF THE OMAHA BEa,
1929 p STREET,

Il
1929 p STREET,
LINCOLN. April 18.
June IL last, joseph urns.commenced suit
against the city of Lincoln, in the district
court, to recover the sum of $1,000 which he
alleges was due him on his contract with the
city to furnish an additional supply Of water
ut the old well in the southeast part of town.
The contract was entered into July IS, 1857,
ana its conditions required Burns to furnish
an additional supply of 100000 gallons of
good water in the twenty-four hours, the work
TO be done on or before December l. 1887
Burns petition rectes that the work was
done to the letter of the contract, and that
the sum of 81, 900 was then due h i'm over and
above the $1,000 that had been paid him in
installments during the progress Of the WORK.
together with interest from March ~, 1883.
The contract was entered into be-
tween tho petitioner and the
]. j. Butler, Austin Humphrey and M. b.
Cheney. The question upon which the con-
troversy hinges is this: Were the conditions
of the contract actually carried outi The
makes q counter claim for damages therefor.
The suit was set for trial IN November, 1888,
and again in January last, but each time was
carried over for some good and sufficient
reason.
Now comes the interesting part of the
story. When MIR. Burns went to work on
his contract he advertised for bids on ma
teral. Among the bidders were II. II. Dean
and w, j. Cooper, both dealers IN pumps and
water supply materials, and both, also, men,
bers of the city council. Deans bid was
somewhat the lowest, and the contract for
furnishing the material was awarded TO him.
When his bill came in, however, 1t was
found TO be several hundred dollars in excess
Of which the contract price called for. The
explanation vouchsafed by Dean was that he
had been instrumental in securing the con-
tract for Burns; that the Job had been fat
one, and that IL was no more than right that
the principal contractor should share the
profits with the sub-contractors II is not
known whether or not Deans claim was paid
In full. But the Inference is strong that it
was not. Subsequently Burns claim came
up before one of the meetings OF the council.
Before this, Horton, Deans partner In the
pump business, approached Burns and said
that IL he would give Dean 10 per cent OF the
claim he would have no trouble in getting
sufficient ayes from the aldermanic auto
Gratis to insure its approval and allowance.
burns asked Horton what assurance he
would have IL he should comply with the
terms that his claim would be allowed. Hor-
ton Indicated that he would stand as the 60
between, and the only thing necessary was
to put the percentage sought into his hands.
No questions We're TO be asked. Burns went
to Dean for verification of Horizons PROPOSE.
ton. The opiuion was again volunteered
tnat he had pcen instrumental in securing
him the contract, and that II was eminentiy
fair that Burns should share the profits.
Dean also said that there was q combination
In the council, aud that he could not get his
claim unless he sugared IL. The grand
finale came, Burns said ''millions for de
fense, but not one cent for tribute" The
claim went TO the council unsupported By
any promise OF a "divvy," and IL was denied
and the suit IN hand is the outcome.
The foregoing is MIR. Burns story Of the
cause that leads him TO seek redress In the
courts.
Interesting times are ahead. MIR. Burns
says he has abundance of proof in hand u
show that there is much that sis rotten In
Denmark He attributes his defeat in the