Omaha daily bee., 1903-05-01
of April IS, 1897.

works question waxed warm. The lines
lwere sharply drawn and Howell was COM
PEELED to choose between the two sides.
His ability as a trimmer was taxed to the
utmost and by drawing largely on this
faculty and doing a great deal Of lodging
he avoided going on record in many in
stances, but the records OF the council
proceedings show very clearly where he
stood on the question whenever his vote
was needed.
Starting the latter part OF 1898, the dis
pute between the water company on the one
hand and the mayor and a part Of the council
on the other hand waged 1ercely, last
ing until the end Of Howell's term Of office
as councilman. During this entire dispute
Howell was on the side OF the water COM
Always with the Company.
December 26. 1898, just before the end Of
HowelPs first term in the council, the bill
Of the American Water Works company for
the first six months OF that year was vetoed
by the mayor on the ground that it was a
notorious fact that the water company was
not furnishing the fire protection required
by its contract and on the further ground
that the city had been put to an expense
Of over $4,000 in buying and equipping fire
engines to give the city the fire protection
the water company was claiming pay for
furnishing. The mayor that
the bill Of the company be reduced in order
to make good to the city this extra expense,
which was claimed to be directly charge
able against the water company. Did
Howell vote to sustain this position Of the
mayor? Nit.
July IT, 1894, after Howell had been re-
elected to the council, the bill Of the water
company for the last six months Of 1898 was
vetoed by Mayor Bemis on account Of non
compliance with the terms Of the contract.
Again the council voted to override the
mayors veto and Howell was among the
first to vote to protect the interests of the
water company against the demands of the
city.
January s, 1895, another bill OF the
American Water Works company was
vetoed by the mayor in a long message,
setting forth the delinquencies of the water
company and the palpable fact that the city
was being mulcted each year for thousands
of dollars for which 1t received no adequate
return. In this as in the case of every
other veto of the mayor. the discussion IN
the council was warm. The matter was
fully discussed in all it's bearings and there
was no possibility of any member of the
council being ignorant of all the details
in connection with the case, but here Howell
is found on the side of the corporation and
voting to protect it against any possible
encroachment on the part of the city,
defending the corporation against any
possibility of being forced into court to
sdjudicate a questionable claim.
March 20. 1895, the mayor called the at
tention of The council to the fact that the
water. company made a practice OF extend
ing small mains indefinitely until the pres
sure at the end of one of these long mains
was reduced by friction to almost nothing.
The mayor urged the appointment of a COM
mittee to devise a plan Thereby the water
company should be compelled to extend
mains with a view Of furnishing an ample
supply of water for ala future needs. Howell
was appointed chairman of this COM
mitteee and April 2, 1895, this committee
reported a plan whereby the water COM
pany was to submit to the council a plat
in each instance where a new hydrant WAS
ordered showing the location of the new
main. This was simply playing directly
into the hands OF the corporation and the
plan was condemned by the city engineer
as being no change from the old way. A
plan was later submitted by the mayor by
which ordinances ordering new hydrants
should be drafted by the city engineer, the
size of the mains being based on careful
calculations of the probable future needs
OF the section in which the mains we're to
be laid. This plan was Objectionable to
the water company on account Of the in
creased expense caused by laying larger
mains, and Howell fought the plan in the
council. Notwithstanding his opposition,
the plan was adopted and is in force to
this day.
His Last Water Works Deal.
The only instance on record in which
Howell voted to sustain the veto Of the
mayor on the bills of the water company
is found in the records OF the city council
proceedings for April 30, 1896, This bill
was vetoed while an effort was being made
by the water company to effect a COM
promise with the city whereby it might
get the money that it claimed was due,
the mayor having refused to sign the war
rants for water rent. All during the
summer of 1895 these attempts at a COM
promise were continued, Howell being very
active in trying to force some Of the eoun-
cilmen and the mayor into line on a COM
promise which would give the water COM
pany everything 1t asked for and leave the
city holding the sack. This effort finally
eliminated in the appointment Of a COM
mittee Of three on August q, 1895, Howell
being made chairman of the committee.
August 80 this committee submitted a ma
tOrity and minority report to the council.
The majority report was signed by Howell
and one other member of the committee.
In substance II was to the effect that the
receivers Of the water company intended"
to expend a portion OF the money claimed
to be due from the city in charging the
mains In the business portion Of the city
and recommended hat the back bills Of the
company be paid at once.
The minority report was signed by Ken
nard and was a "scorcher." 1t called
things by their right names and denounced
the whole scheme as a trick to dupe the
eouncilmen and declared that there was
absolutely nothing in the pretended agree
ment which would protect the interests OF
the city. A Ted-hot fight was waged in the
council over the adoption OF these reports.
Frank Burnley, one of Howell's democratic
colleagues in the council, and Kennard.
who signed the minority report, made a
strong tight for the adoption Of the minor
ity report. This corporation contingent,
however, led by Howell. voted to protect
the water company. urging as a pretext
that the payment OF these bills meant work
for thousands OF ~workingmen. The cor
poration henchmon triumphed and the bills
were passed In the appropriation ordinance.
September 3. 1895. the mayor vetoed these