Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-12-23

water WOlhs SITUATION mas AZ lehsti
started some people to thinking and
precipitated a discussion that warrants
still palmer talk on this subject
The controversy is not, as appears
on the surface. a personal one between
the officers Of the water company and
the hired attorneys of the water board,
each accusing the other Of trying to
perpetuate a salary, but involves the
most vital interests of the taxpaying
citizens of Omaha and of the whole
community. The people who pay the
water bills are not so much concerned
with the verbal fulminations between
these two sets of self-constituted de-
bators as they are with the acCumu
lating costs Of litigation and the in
creasing embarrassments of the water
service, all of which they will have to
pay for in the end. They would like
relief at the earliest possible moment
on the one side from an excessive
schedule Of water rates, fixed twenty
FIVE years ago, and on the other side
from the paralysis which prevents ex-
tension of the water system to meet
the needs of our expanding popula-
ton.
The righteousness of the propo-
sition to proceed with the construc-
ton Of a new water works system and
invest several million borrowed dollars
in pumping machinery and pipe mains
while the suit to compel the purchase
of the existing plant under the APP
praisement already made is still pend
ing and thereby take a chance Of
having two water works systems on
our hands, has already been pointed
out. The bubble about excluding that
part of the mains and hydrants within
the limits of South Omaha is likewise
not worth considering because it will
be eliminated before long by the con-
solidation of Omaha and South Omaha
under one municipal government.
Lawyers on both sides of case are
usually over-confident, especially
where a big fee is in sight, but It must
be remembered that one side or the
other must lose. Assuming the most
favorable position claimed by the
water boards legal luminaries and
that the city should win out against
the demand for court affirmation of
the appraisers report, where would
that still leave us? In their answer
filed in this case the water boards
attorneys set forth that on the return
of the alleged appraisement the water
board refused to acquiesce in It and
appointed one Mortimer E. Cooley as
new engineer to represent the city
in a second appraisement, at the same
time calling upon the water company
to name its representative 80 that the
two might choose the third engineer
and proceed to a reappraisement. Ig-
noring the pending litigation, they fur
Their allege that the refusal of the
water company to respond to this in
vitation within twenty days, as stipu-
lated by law, must be taken to have
forfeited altogether whatever right to
sell its property to the city the water
company had derived from the latter's
election to buy under the purchase
clause. In other words, all that the
city originally contended for was that
it had a right to set aside the APP
praisement brought in by two of the
three engineers and to proceed to an
other appTaisement; for no court is
likely ever to hold that the water com
pany lost its right to sell by falling
to name a new engineer within twenty
days when II was at that very time
pursuing its remedy in court in an
| other way, as 1t thought was its privi-
lege.
The best the city can hope for, then,
out of the suit It is resisting in the
| federal court is an order setting aside
the appraisement and providing for
new one, putting us back substantially
where we were four years ago. Even
with such a victory, the city would be
no more able to command the position
and dictate terms than 1t is now be-
cause If an appraisement can be set
aside when the city's engineer fails to
agree with his colleagues it may be
set aside again when the water com
pany's engineer fails likewise to agree
with his colleagues. Under such de-
cision existing conditions could be per-
petuated, but no appraisement could
be reached that would be binding I'M
less satisfactory to both sides.
The legal spokesman of the water
board intimates that the officers of
the water company do not represent
the real owners of the water works.
That may or may not be true, but it is
becoming palmer and palmer that the
water board and its hired attorneys
no longer represent the sentiment of
the people of Omaha, who would be
the real owners If the plant were &C
quired by the city, The people of
Omaha are the sufferers in the present
situation They would like to have
the matter settled at some early day.
If, however, anyone is to negotiate