Omaha daily bee., 1905-10-22
COUNCIL BLUFFS
CITY'S OFFER IS REJECTED
Water Works officials Reply to Proposal to
AppOin. Appraisers for Plant
INSISTS ON AGREEMENT TO PAY CASH
Point Ont that Expense Of Appraisal
- Needless Unless City Specific
ally Agrees 60 This Part of
Proposition.

Manager Z. W. Hart Of the Council BLUFFS
Water Works company has declined 10
consider the proposition OF the city council
as embraced In the resolution recently
adopted by that body relative TO appoint
ing arbitrator to determine the value Of
the company's plant. for the reason that
the committee in charge Of the negotiations
entirely ignored the condition named in the
water company's proposition. which was
TO the effect that the sale Of it's plant TO
the city would have to be on a cash basis
Manager Hart yesterday sent the follow
ing communication to the special commit
tee on water works, which Is composed OF
Mayor Macrae and Aldermen Weaver, Gil
bert and Mcmillan, In order that it might
receive attention at the hands OF the city
council at its meeting Monday night:
on october Is a communication bearing
Macrae, Weaver and Gilbert OF your com
mittee, was presented to the water COM
pany by the same. This communication
purported to advise the water company
of the adoption by the city council OF
resolution accepting the water companys
proposition of August q, but either in
advertently or by design the resolution of
the council did not correspond with the
conpany's proposition In Its most essential
feature.
The oompany's proposition OF August p
was as follows: The company offers to
sell all its property TO the city for cash
three thoroughly competent hydraulic en-
gineers of good standing in their profess
SIC SION, one 70 De CHOSEN by me ne CITY, , one
these two. If the sale is finally consum-
mated under such arbitration, the city and
the water company to bear the expense
OF the arbitration in equal shares. But
should either the city or the water com
Pany fail or refuse for any reason to abide
by such arbitration, the one 80 failing or
refusing to bear all such expense"
sale Must he for Cash.
On September 10 the water company re-
ceived a communication from you bearing
date OF September II, completely ignoring
the specific provision in the communica-
ton OF August p that payment must be
made in cash. On date of October II the
water company answered your communica-
ton dated September II, and In such
answer statedi
This company has a bonded debt OF
$3.50 oOo' the entire proceeds OF which. to-
OF stock and existing floating debt Of the
company have been Invested in the con-
structon and operation Of plant. That I'M
der the circumstances the company feels
compelled to sacrifice in case Of sale to
the city. the money invested by stock
legal but a moral obligation to see to
II that Its creditors do not suffer. We
were, therefore compelled in our. communi-
cation of August q to expressly provide
that II the works were sold to the city
It must be for cash"
Your communication wholly fails to state
its acceptance is an essential preliminary
to our ability to negotiate for a sale.
In the face of the fact that the COM
pany has thus twice pointed out that II
Is an essential prerequisite to the MAX
ing of an arbitration agreement that the
city agree to take the plant at the price
agreed upon by the arbitrators and pay
for II in cash, the council, when adopt
ing the resolution set out in the commune
cation delivered October 16, while assum-
ing to accept the proposition of the water
company of August "a, omitted from said
proposition the words cash at" tlus
wholly changing the water company s
proposition.
In view OF the fact that the water COM
pany has twice so specifically advised the
council that no other system OF payment
could be considered, and of the refusal
Of your committee In all of its communica'
lions 10 refer to this subject, the company
can but assume that this change In the
prouostion was by design.
The omission OF the words cash at
from the proposition as embraced In the
resolution of the city council leaves YOU
committee without authority to enter into
the contract proposed by the water com
pany. The company will be glad to make
n contract with the city through your hon
orable committee in strict accordance Will
the proposition of August p whenever thu
council shall have authorized you TO max,
such contract. But in view of the ex
rensive arbitration, which we are advised
in the matter of the Dubuque plant cos
something over $4,000 exclusive OF attor
news fees we cannot see our way clea
TO make a contract until the council ha
authorized YOU to accept our proposition
without modification,