Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-09-18
WATER WORKS INTEREST UP
Question Of City Paying High Inter
est Knotty One.
COMPANY OFFERS A NEW PLAN
webster, for city, says Irs UnIawfui
90 Pay Interest for Time when
Company's Deed Was
Not Complete.

The question as to whether or not the
city OF Omaha when IL takes over the
water works, should be compelled TO pay
interest on the appraised price OF the
Omaha Water company's property from
the time OF its appraisement TO the time
of actually taking II over. occupied mort OF
the time at the Saturday morning hearing
on the decree which the city wishes signed
against the water company.
John l.. Webster who Is attorney for
the Water Board was in the midst Of an
extended argument on this point when, at
Roon and adjournment of two hours was
taken. Attorney Webster, In the early
part Of his argument commended that II
was manifestly unlawful that the city
should be compelled TO pay this interest
for the reason that IL was not in default
In the payment OF the purchase price un-
til the water company was in position to
give absolutely clear title to all its property.
This they have never done" said Mr..
Webster "and are not doing now. The
best the corporation has offered us is a
simple auit-claim deed"
Early in the hearing. which convened be-
fore Judges w. H. Sanborn and NJ. H.
Munger at 10 clock, Attorney Mansfield Of
New York, counsel for the water company,
offered decree which ne proposed to
substitute for the one asked by the city
This in substance, would order the water
company to turn over to the city all the
profits which the plant has netted 1t since
the deed was offered the city in 1908;
would order the property near Krug park
on Burt street and near the settling basin
in Florence, the title to which there is OBJ
lection on the part of the city, be exempted
from the purchase and a corresponding re-
duction In the appraised price made and
would compel the city to pay the appraised
price with interest at the legal rate from
the date on which the water company
claims to have offered 1t a sufficient deed
to the property.
Webster objects.
Attorney Webster objected to this pro-
! posed decree upon the ground that the
| company had no right to exempt the city
| from the purchase of the property in oues-
ton. contending that that matter was one
for the CITY, itself. to settle.
To the decree which the city had asked
to be granted and which provided among
other things for the submitting by two
New York trust companies OF the mort
cages held against the water company by
them, Attorney Mansfield objected on the
| ground that the court had no jurisdiction
over these companies which would make
4
signed
Hydrant Rentals Discussed.
The question OF hydrant rentals also
came up in the mornings discussion, At
torney Webster contending that It was
farciclal to consider that in suing the city
| for the rental of these hydrants, the water
company had acted for the city's interest
and as It's trustee, as had been contended
I
point in trying to prove that the company
should be allowed interest on the money
which 1t was required TO borrow to run the
plant pending the settlement of these suits.
The tremendous sum at stake has lent
especial tervOr. to the discussion regarding
| the paying of the interest and 1t is ex-
pected that the arguments on that point
will occupy the greater part Of the. after
noon.