Omaha daily bee., 1905-11-08
PIECE APPRAISAL WILL co
Valuation Of Separate PsrOOls Of Property
Acceptable to Water Company.
INSISTS ON WHOLE PLANT GOING IN
Judge wOOlwOrth Says Nothing Else
VIII De Agreeable to His
Clients - Argument he
fore Judge Munger.

I'VE cannot agree 10 anything but that
the appraisers shall appraise the whole
property. We do say however, II your
honor sees fit we will agree to an APP
praisement of the separate pieces OF the
property, but that the assessment must be
made on the whole property
Judge Woolworth, attorney for the
Omaha Water company, made this state
ment in his argument before Judge Mum
ger of the federal court Tuesday morning.
Argument on the motion to dissolve the
temporary injunction relative to the APP
praisement of the value of the property of
the Omaha Water company outside the
city limits of Omaha was continued be-
fore Judge Munger in the United States
circuit court Tuesday morning.
Attorney R. S. Hall opened the argu-
meut in behalf of the water company.
The gist of his argument was that under
the law Of 1903 it was mandatory upon
the city of Omaha to buy or construct a
system of water works and under the con-
tract between the city and the water COM
pany by the ordinance establishing the
present system Of water works the city
had no other recourse than to buy the
property Of the Omaha Water company.
He elaborated upon the meaning and word
ing Of the contract and insisted the words
System" and plant" contemplated the
entire system of the Omaha plant without
segregation.
Judge WoOIwOrth's Argument.
Judge j. NJ. woolworth. in behalf of the
water company, elaborated exhaustively
upon the question of the appraisement
and the creation of the board of appraisers.
1.-THE court" he said. has no right to
interfere with the appraisers while these
proceedings are in controversy. To do
so will be 10 make confusion doubly con-
founded. It will do no good to interfere.
1--WE have no objection to the appraisers
estimating the value of the property in
different items, but the valuation must be
as a whole. We are not responsible for
the time wasted in the appraisement. That
responsibility rests with the appraisers. l
hold the city should be held to its con-
| tract after the agreement was made for
| the appraisement. These appraisers are
engineers of great experience and profess
sionally knew what should be appraised
| and what should be taken into account
| There was no one else to fix this valuatio
! Now the city proposes TO take it out Of
| the hands of the appraisers, We insist
| on the letter of the contract as made by
| the parties to it. For this court to dc
| otherwise will be TO go outside the law
| The Water board and the city should hav'
! spoken when It had a right TO speak. A
one time a city attorney Of Omaha, wher
this contract was pending, said all Of tn,
property of the water company was neces
sary for the operation OF the system. Thi
OF course meant South Omaha and adjoin
ing regions"
Wright Closes Argument.
Former City Attorney c. r. Wright close'
the argument for the city and water boar
at $3.50. His line Of argument was tn
same general tenor as that OF Mr.. Web
ster in the opening argument in which
he held the appraisement had been pro
traoted TO great length and at a big cos
10 the city.
1T will be impossible for the city L
vote bonds for the purchase OF the waite
works." he said, until it is known wha
it is TO buy. We are not opposing the ap
praisement but what We do want is
definite appraisement of the property o
the water company within the city limit
OF Omaha"
Judge Munger took the matter under ad
visement but did not signify any tim
as 10 when he would pass upon the mat
ter