Omaha daily bee., 1909-04-16
Such a Haste.

Dy the water DOard TO vote S6,
of bonds at this particular time?
Why this haste to get ready to Dor
row money to pay a judgment which
may be rendered in a case which can
not be eve argued in the supreme
court for six to eight months?
From the very start those high
priced Water board lawyers have been
telling us that they are sure to win out
in all their water works litigation inc
that the appraisement of t6,263,-
295.49 will never stand. Are they
getting cold feet, or we're they bunco-
ing us all the time?
If you had a law suit which your
attorneys had been telling you you
were certain to win and had gotten
you to pay them $4,000 to $4,000
in retainers and fees as they went
along and then suddenly came to you
before the appeal was set for hearing
and advised you to negotiate a mort
gage on your property right away and
get ready to fork over, what would
you think of them? Wouldn't you
think the other side had been busy?
In this water works litigation the
apparent over-haste of the Water
board bond boosters is still more strik-
ing when the wording of the law is
considered. Water Bill No. 2, relating
to the purchase of the water plant,
which is the law under which the
Water board is supposed to be now
acting, reads:
Said water board shall have sole au-
thority and power to act on behalf of
such city in all matters pertaining
thereto, including the appointment of APP
p~raisers whenever required; the general
supervision of any resulting appraise-
ment; the acceptance or rejection of any
award resulting from any such appraise-
ment; and of all other negotiations con-
nected with or pertaining to the acquisi-
ton of such water plant. Provided, that
no acceptance OF any such appraissmsnt
shall be binding upon such city unless
bonds. are voted for the acquisition of
such water plant under such appraise-
Snent.
First and foremost, so far as the
records of the Water board go, there
Is no award and there is no acceptance
of any appraisement to be ratified by
the people. On the contrary, the rec
ords of the Water board show ID
that the pretended appraisement
signed by two engineers, from which
the third dissented, was rejected; CD
that the Water board appointed an
other engineer to represent the city,
calling on the water company to APP
point a second engineer to proceed
with a new appraisement under the
purchase clause; 90 that on refusal
of the water company to name its en-
gineer or to a~cqu1esce in the rejection
of the appraisement the city rescinded
its action electing to buy and employed
experts to draw plans for a new water
works to be constructed without re-
gard to the existing plant. If the
Water board records show, n the
water works lawyers contend. that
there is no acceptance" of any ap-
praisement to be voted on, how will
NOllhS pOsOOO,VOV III WdtcI DOUQS AT
This time be a ratification of the ac-
-eptance?
In the next place, the bond PROPOSE
tion as formulated by the Water board
attorneys and submitted to the people
does not even refer to the appraise-
ment. 1t is simply a s~traight-out is
sue of bonds for the general purpose
of acquiring a water plant. The Sec
ton requiring popular ratification of
the award was not in Water Bill No. /,
but was inserted in Water Bill No. 2
on demand of the editor of The Bee in
order that the people might have a
veto upon any deal the Water board
might undertake to make with the
owners of the water company, No
reading of the law, except by twisting
the ordinary meaning of the words,
can be made to give the Water board
a right to assume that the voting OF a
blanket bond issue, with no reference
TO any appraisement, fulhlls the con-
dition that mo acceptance of any such
appraisement shall be binding unless
bonds are voted under such appraise-
ment.p
If the supreme court of the United
States six months to a year hence
should decree hat the city of Omaha
must pay $6,263, 295.49 for the water
plant under its contract, there will be
plenty of time to vote the bonds after
the judgment is entered, and 1t may be
doubted whether any bond issue now
voted will avoid the necessity of voting
again after the appraisement is ac-
cepted.
Perhaps those democratic law