Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-10-21
WOODBURY. NARES SHOWING
President Of Water Company Files Affidavit
in Federal Court
TOUCHES ON POINTS IN APPRMsEWEN1
VOIuminOus Document Gives Position
Taken by Company in Proceed
inga to Determine value
of the Plant.

]
/ Water company, which was filed in the
! United States circuit court Thursday even
( ing. relates to the suit of the City of
| Omaha and Water board OF the City Of
Omaha against Daniel w. Mead, John W.
Alvord, George II. Benzenberg and the
/ Omaha Water company on the matter Of
! the appraisement of the water plant. and
has nothing to do with the injunction and
! contempt proceeding recently appealed to
| the circuit court of appeals.
| Mr.. Woodbury. was summoned as a wit
| ness in the case but succeeded in evading
| the service of summons while he was in
| Omaha during the early part of October.
| The AFFIDAVIT was executed in New York
on october H. Several pages of the docu-
| ment relate to the history of the water
company. it's bonded Indebtedness, etc.
These references include the portions of the
| plant at Florence, South Omaha, East
Omaha, Dundee and Omaha. Reference is
made to the legislative enactment of Feb
ruary, 1903 relative to the purchase of the
plant and the ordinances of the city coun-
| Gil following.
what He Understood.
Reference is also made to the appoint
ment of Alvord, Benzenberg and Mead as
appraisers to estimate the value of the
/ pant. fItSlutuN NuOuDulN says
My understanding and that of other d.
/ rectors was that the city had power under
| It's charter to purchase and operate the
limits, and that the council had decided to
! purchase the entire system. the water COM
! pany TO appoint an engineer on its behalf
for making an estimate Of the purchase
| price.
The appraisement is gone into at some
! length and the admission is made that "the
water company appeared before the apprals-
ers from time to time between July, 1903, and
! January 1905, but the water company gave
no testimony through witnesses with regard
to the value of the plant, but left that to
the appraisers" and adds:
Since then the appraisers have held
numerous meetings and would have sub
! mitted an appraisement but for the in
! junction The water company has not
| interposed any obstacle TO delay The COM
| petion OF the appraisement but desires Il
| completed as early as possible. The act
| of January 10, 1906 amending the act of
| 1908, provides that the water board might
| contract with any municipality adjacent
| to supply 1t with water. l am of the
| opinion that this new law was to enable
! the city of Omaha to operate a system in
| adjacent communities well as sts own
! Not until ! was on the point of sailing
! to Europe did I have any other idea that
! the city or water board proposed to pre-
| vent or delay the completion of the ap-
1 praisement / believe it was because the
| water board feared the system would be
/ Il
! for the water board publicly advised that
| the city should pay. 7 have no lesitancy
in saying that the reduction of rates was
made by the water board for the purpose
! of Affecting the appraisement with the ex-
| pectation of litigation. in the course of
which they might hope to obtain a valua-
! ton OF the plant on more restricted evil
! dence than that before the appraiser and
otherwise to delay, embarrass and per-
| maps defeat the appraisement and pre-
vent the purchase elected to be made IN
der the provisions of ordinance No. 432
Fears Eminent Domain Law.
| am informed and believe that the pur-
| pose has been openly declared by counsel
for the Water board to be to defeat the
appraisement and thus clear the way Cor
an attempt to ACQUIRE the company's water
works plant and the operation thereof
through resort to eminent domain. which
says the city may appoint the appraisers.
II Is in furtherance of this purpose, I am
informed and believe that the attempt wa IS
| made to induce the city council after an
thorizing the city attorney to confess tudg-
ment for the amount due on hydrant rent
thority with which the city attorney had
not complied. and instruct the city attorney
to contest the action brought by the water
company in this court for the collection ~
| those hydrant rentals, and that in pur-
suance Of the same policy the city is con-
rentals due July |, 1905. Although Judgment
for Migrant rentals which had previously
become due pending the apprasement for
which 1t was necessary to confess tudg-
ment because of the Limitation of the act OF
1903, of right to raise the necessary money
by tax levy, had been confessed and war
rants issued for the amounts of the judg-
ments.
Talks of n Suit.
I believe the citizens of Omaha are in
terested In the appraisement and desire
having It completed without DELAY, I fur
Their believe that when the appraisement OF
the entire system is completed all questions
that the city and Water board can raise
can be settled by proper suit. If DELAYED
the appraisement may be imperilled, i'm
which case the water company would suffer
The water company has recognized the
right OF the city to purchase the system
under the ordinance of 1880, and so far from
interposing delay agreed to the appointment
of appraisers some months before the time
when the city's right to make the purchase
arrived, made efforts to furnish proper
chedules of property soon as possible
Since August, 1896 the water company has
expended on enlargement and improvements
SS00,0O0 in cash. Hence interference with
the appraisement at this stage can only
result in great detriment to the water com.
pany and involve further expensive litiga-
ton and postpone indefinitely the acquire
ment of the water plant by the city and
result in no fair compensatory advantages
to the city.
Answer Filed I'm Suit.
The Water board and the city of Omaha
filed an answer in The United States circuit
court Friday afternoon in the case OF the
Omaha Water company against the City OF
Omaha and the Water Board of the City OF
Omaha. The petition alleges that the water
company has failed to perform its part OF
the contract with the city, and that 1t has
failed TO furnish the number of hydrants
as provided in the contract. The water
company has failed and neglected TO settle
and purify the water furnished the city rs
| provided I'm section of ordinance 423 and
that said water is not good for domestit
purposes. Section of ordinance 428, as
amended by ordinance 43O. requires the water
| company to furnish pumping machinery
SUFFICIENT 10 throw water at stated elevi,
lions In various points OF the city through
one-inch nozzles, but as alleged in the pc,
tition they have repeatedly failed to do so
Consequently the city has been compelled
to purchase and maintain steam fire engine.
at a great expense. The water company
! 1t is further alleged, has failed TO make
promised extensions of its works, pipes
mains and hydrants, and consequently /,
not entitled to rentals for such incompleteC
works and extensions, and that the value
OF the water furnished by the water com
pany 70 the city from December 81, 1904
to July /, 1895. does not exceed $1,000 Tn,
petition further claims that the city hai
been put to an expense OF SS1, 645 IS from
January l, 1901. to July l. 1905, by the failur,
OF the water company to comply with III
contract and conditions Of franchise, anC