Omaha daily bee., 1909-05-02
Is There a Hidden Reasons

why nave the members OF tne
Water board selected this particular
time to submit the proposition to issue
$4,000, 900 in water bonds?
The award of the appraisers was
made in July three years ago and the
Water board promptly rejected 1t. The
water company brought suit for
specific performance of the contract,
which, when carried up to the United
States circuit court of appeals, re-
suited in a judgment against the city.
This decision of the United States cir
cult court of appeals was handed down
in April, 1908, and within sixty days
thereafter the Water board had pre-
vailed on the supreme court of the
United States to take jurisdiction on
a writ of certiorari.
If the Water board wanted bonds
voted in the sum of $4,000, 900 to COM
plete the purchase, why did it not ask
for them at the time the judgment
was rendered a year ago?
Why did it not submit it's bond
proposition at the election last fall,
when bonds could readily have been
voted without the expense of a special
election?
Why, If there is no possibility of
bringing the case to a hearing in the
supreme court for eight or ten months
at the earliest, should not the bonds
have waited until next fall?
The Water boards official statement
Is careful not to give any reason for
injecting the water bond issue into the
present city election. Some members
of the board have been brash enough
to explain that the bonds can be car
ried now by a majority vote, whereas,
II not voted at this election, they
would have to wait three years for an
other city election to permit of carry
ing by majority. Anyone who will
read the law governing the Water
board can see that this explanation is
pure fiction. The section under which
these bonds are being submitted
reads:
uNd IhdA iO acceptance VI lily ShCl
appraisement shall be binding upon such
city unless bonds are voted for the acquisi-
ton of such water plant under such APP
praisement. Said bonds are not to be sold
for less than par and issued only in case
the proposition is ratified by a majority
Of the votes cast upon the proposition at a
general election, or two-thirds OF the votes
cast in case the proposition shall be sub
mitted at a special election.
The fact is that there is grave ques-
ton whether a two-thirds vote is not
needed to carry the proposition at the
forthcoming city election because the
words general election" do not spe-
officially include a city election, and
our courts have held hat a city cleo
ton is not a general election" What
is meant by the words general cleo
ton" would usually be ascertained by
the more definite use of the same
words in the same law. A previous
section of the same law provides for
the election of members of the Water
board and fixes their terms so that
those first appointed hold until the
nrst MONDAY In January, following the
general election" and all members
of the board who by law are required
to be chosen at a general election"
have been chosen at November cleo
tions.
Be this as it may, there is absolutely
no question whatever but that a ma
jority vote would have carried the
bonds at last falls election, and would
carry them again at next falls election.
The Water board, therefore, must be
Withholding the real reason for asking
for Sc, 500, 900 of water bonds at his
time-a year after the judgment in
the court of appeals and nearly a yeaI
before 1t can possibly be affirmed by
the supreme court.