Omaha daily bee., 1906-12-30
WOODBURY. WRITES WRIGHT
President of Water Company Replies to
Letter of Attorney for Water Board.
POINTS IN CONTROVERSY MADE CLEAR
Position of the Company on the
Matter of Appraisement Again
Stated and Contention of
the Board Answered.

President Woodbury. of the Water com
pany has added to the growing volume Of
literature on the Omaha water supply
situation in the following letter in reply to
Attorney Wright of the Water board
NEW YORK, Dec. 27-Carl c. Wright.
Esq, Attorney for Omaha Water Board,
Omaha Dear Sir-I have read in the
Omaha newspapers statement by you as
attorney for the Water board, which, /
suppose, is meant to be a seml-omcl9i
answer to my letter of December II, ad-
dressed to that body, which otherwise
seems disposed to Ignore communications
from the omaha Water company.
My letter Of December II was written for
the purpose of setting the Omaha public
right about the facts Of the matter, and
not from worry about any action the Water
board has taken or may take.
Your statement as given in the news
papers conveys SUCH wrong impression OF
the facts that, much against my Inclination,
l am impelled to write you stating them
correctly.
of my previous letters l stated that the
bill to compel the city to purchase the
works at the appraised valuation was pre-
praisement exceeded 100000, from which
you suggest the inference that any APP
praisement above that sum would have
there may be no misunderstanding by the
public, l quote my exact language from
of the preparation of the papers in the
specific performance suit, l said: In fact
SO soon as members and representatives, Of
the Water board began to declare publicly
that if the appraisement should be over
100000 valuation-which the officers of the
Water company from their knowledge of
the plant felt sure must be materially ex-
ceeded-the city would not be advised to
complete the purchase OF the water works,
would have TO refer TO the court to make
the city carry out its contract l claim
that the Soy pae5 of these YEAS works b
as | stated in my letter of December H.
we had been advised by our attorney that
whatever the appraisement, we would be
obliged to accept it, in absence of fraud.
status of the Controversy.
You are further reported to have given
your opinion as to the proper basis Of val
uation OF the plant You MADE the same
but without effect. You talk now If
there had been no appraisement. There
can be no. getting away from the facts that
the city elected to buy the water company s
plant and that both the city and the COM
pany appointed an appraiser and that the
third appraiser was the selection OF these
two appraisers, and that the city paid one
Galf Of his expenses, and that all three APP
praisers took part in the examination and
was not concurred in by the engineer APP
pointed by the city, the two concurring
engineers, as you know, are as eminent for
lbillty and experience as any hydraulic en-
sineers in the country and are men of UNI
llemshed personal character To talk
about such men as If they were crooked
deceive the ignorant and unthinIing.
You and the Water board continue TO
withhold from the public any statement of
the valuation by the engineer whom the
city appointed Why not let the people of
! Omaha know what the real difference was
between the two engineers and the third
engineer, who al the very end OF the APP
praisal hid his own estimate behind mere
nonconcurrence?
You Intimate that the Water hoard is
ready to consent that any additions neces-
sary to supply Omaha with water may be
made and the cost thereof repaid If the
purchase is completed, but, you say, that
to pay not only the cost, but interest
thereon, is asking too much. This may
sound very well TO the uniformed, but let
me cali your attention to the fact that
when extensions are ordered by the city
MIGRANTS are required to be put on each
extension, which Will give the company a
revenue, but the building OF a new supply
main would not call for any additional hy-
drants; neither would It involve any ma
but would simply be for the greater pro
lection Of the community
Ownership of the Plant.
You talk about the bondholders as the
real owners of the plant, but these works
are not under foreclosure, and you know,
as a lawyer, that therefore the real own
ers of the plant are the stockholders, whom
the directors represent.
You are also reported as stating that
whenever l desired In good faith to present
any reasonable proposition TO the Water
board for action you can assure me that
the board will meet with me at any time
and act upon the same l thought that
had made the position of our directors per-
fecty clear in my letter Of December II.
We regard the present relation between the
company and the city as one of contract,
and not one of negotiation for a contract
and therefore ] fail to see why l should
make any proposition to the Water board
with regard TO purchase of the works
on any other basis.
OF course, l propose to give this letter
such publicity as you gave your state
ment. Very truly yours, "