The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-07-14
HUDSON'S WATER
AT BOILING POINT
MILLER BURKHARDT AND COUN.
OIL VS.. MAYOR AND OTHERS.
Contract Ordered by the Council and
Not Approved by the Mayor Likely
to Drag It's Way Thru AL Kinds of
Legal Proceedings. ...
Special to The Journal.


Hudson, Wis.,, July 14.-will Christian Burk-
hardt the wealthy miller and owner of the
Willow River Power company, get any pay for
supplying the city Of Hudson with water and
Light? .' =.
The contract under which Mr.. Burkhardt has
been supplying Hudson with light and water
expired July /, 1905, but he has continued to
do the work since on the strength of new
contract ordered by the city council and signed
by City Clerk Albert Karras on behalf of the
municipality and by Mr.. Burkhardt on his own
behalf, which, however, the mayor has refused
to approve.
Mayor Mcguire has not attempted to restrain
Mr. Burkhardt from proceeding according to the
terms OF this contract, which allows about $3.50
a month for such services, but he Is waitins
FOR the payday at the end Of this month. Mr..
Burkhardt is to be paid monthly. for his services,
and the only way the city can pay him is by
an order the city treasurer. But the treas
urer cannot and will not honor any order which
Is not approved by the mayor. Mayor Mcguire
has announced that he will not sign Burkhari>~
order, and there he has both Mr.. Burkhardt and
the council ION the hip"
Excites the Risibles. *
The situation has its comic features. as well
as serious features, and a large portion Of the
population-those who do not love Mr. Burk-
hardt-are not anxious to conceal their mirth.
Burkhardts only recourse will be to bring
mandamus proceedings against Mayor Mcguire to
the city treasurer. But legal opinion seems
divided as to whether the court will grant
writ of mandamus in this matter, and even II
it did, the mayor could BY dilatory tactics,
demurrers and appeals, prevent payment for
months, or even years.
Mayor Maguire's reasons for vetoing the eoun-
ellis contract with Burkhardt he gives fol-
lows:
The contract Is unreasonable and unjust and
its execution would be contrary to the expressed
will of the people. That the contract is I'M
reasonable Is shown by the fact that respon-
sible bidder engineer J. W. Johnson Of Still
water) has made offer to do the work for
less. That the contract Is unjust Is shown by
the fact that 1t was let to Mr.. Burkhardt only
after smothering competition. plain charter
provision requiring notice of letting such
contract given the semhlance of compliance
by the tardy publication OF a vague and IN
definite notice to bidders, insufficient time being
given to enable one not otherwise apprised to
prepare bid.
The Other Side.
The council and the supporters of the council
deny the truth Of the mayors charges, saying
that the contract with Burkhardt Is very liberal
to the city, that the city could not do the
work so cheap1y itself. 1t would have to
steam power. whereas Burkhardt uses water
power, and they assert that the vast majority
of the business people of the city favor letting
the contract to Burkhardt, those opposed taking
that stand because of socialistic views and III
will toward Mr.. Burkhardt personally.