Omaha daily bee., 1906-10-24
VENNER WRITES ONCE MORE
New York Company Continues Ger
reEPOndenee over Proposition
TO Buy water works.


c. II. Venner & Co. Of New York have
made further overtures to acquire the
Omaha water works plant. In a letter to
Milton T. Barlow, chairman OF the Water
board under date OF October II 1t is
pointed out that the offer Of S. 10000.
100000 more than the award, Is substantial
evidence Of what the Venner company
thinks the plant is worth An offer TO
modify their original proposition Is made
By Venner x Co., who would offer 81, OOO.1OO
cash and take at par Cougar per cent
bonds to enable the city to complete the
purchase OF the plant. Venner & Co.'S letter
reads.
NEW, YORK Oct. II, 1sO6--M. 7. Barlow.
ESQ., Chairman Water Board Omaha, Neb. /;
Dear Strive note from yours OF the 9TH
inst. that our proposition for the purchase
or lease OF the Omaha water works, dated
July ~. and our letter on the same subject
dated September 20 have by order of the
board, been placed on file Impressed by
the great advantage which, in our view,
these propositions extend to the city, we
regret that you have not been disposed to
give them more serious consideration as
they involve not only a large sum of money,
but conditions which may prove OF vast
importance to the city in the future. Ii
Is but natural that we should urge upon
your attention some reasons tending to
show that our propositions merit careful
Weighing We therefore take the liberty
of saying that. In our opinion, the city Is
likely to be held to a specific performance
that Is, compelled TO take the water plant
at the price fixed by the arbtrators. We
believe that II will be. for IL seems to us
utterly untenable that the contract re-
Quires unanimous report of the Board OF
Appraisers. unanimous occasion is not
required of any appellate court. and IN
the absence OF an express provision in the
contract to that effect we can see no reason
why a unanimous report OF the Board OF
Appraisers should be necessary. The priu-
cipal object of an odd number Of judges OF
arbitrators Is 70 obtain majority decision
In the event Of disagreement as an even
number equally divided could accomplish
But We go further and say that, in oui
opinion. the city cannot justly complain
that the valuation OF $685. 900 is excessive
We know something OF the value OF the
plant. having been in control Of it about
tive and a half years, during which time
IL was reconstructed and extended at A
cost OF about S4.000000, and our offer OF
is substantial evidence OF what we think
the property worth II we are right In oui
prediction that the city will have TO take
tentfon the price win exceed the real value
by S2,00ee00 or more, and IL this conten-
ton be a serious ona 1T appears TO us thai
| 100000 or lease 1t AT rental OF per ceni
upon the value fixed by the arb:trators,. Ii
either case the city, would be relieved Of
what 1t now insists would be bad bar
gain.
II It would malsa--e,ig- proposition more
attractive TO increase, tho cash payment
to s1OOO,OOo, and, to take at par the twenty
year 4 per cent bofids OF the city In ar
amount sufficient TO enable the city to com
/ plete the purchaseS We are disposed e
modify our proposition in. these respects.
The opinion of the United states circuit
/ court Of appeals for the Eighth circuit, by
Judge Sanborn. in the case Of Castle Creel
] Water Company against the City Of Aspen
/ reported in volume 1876. Federal Reporter
! advance sheets. October IL, 1906 is rather
| interesting as rejecting the views OF thai
| court upon the general subject OF arbitra
| ton and the rights of water companies
/ especially as that court will have TO de
I termine the appeal in the present suit by
| the water company to compel the city t
/ take the property.
! Considering that municipal ownership is
/ at the best, a scheme of doubtful wisdom
/ that many citizens Of Omaha are oppose,
/ to Il, and that you have a chance to sci
/ the property for some s.. 500. 900 more thar
/ YOU claim II to be worth, or 20 lease Il a
a rental Of per cent upon the amour
/ OF the appraisers value, there would APP
/ pear to be some melt In our propositions
| which we again commend to your carnes
| consideration. In the one case cur one
| would give to the city a cash profit o
! 100000 and in the other 0easel a net IN
come of $3.50 per annum for twent!
! years, or a total OF 81, 262, 600. Respectful!
| yours, c. II. VENNER & co.