The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-12-06
ANOTHER ARGUMENT
On Giving Away Other PeO-
pies Property.
THE CANAL ENBANKMENT.
A Number or Suggestions in Reply
10 Justices" Correspondence
\ Few Days Ago.
E CANAL EMBANKMENT.
SALT LAKE CITY. Dec. 9Th. 1884.

over the signature of Justice" that
melted in my naturally Emphatic self
slight desire to reply, and as your
valuable columns are not closed against
the discussion of this subject thought
1 would address you few lazy lines.
If the City Council have made 4 mis-
take in their grant to the D. & R. G.,
in not binding the railroad against
loss to the city, is that q reason why
they should not be able to guard such
an omission in the future2 l neither
know por care who held the position OF
City Attorney when that carelessly
guarded grant was given, but think
the mischief lies at his door. take If
for granted that the City Council
! entrusted such point to be guarded by
| that officer. Is it because q mistake
has been once made in the manner of
managing transaction, that 4
transaction Of similar nature must never
beperformed2 Where would our progress
! be II because Of an error III the manner
of doing. We never repeat an action? If
the city had been properly and legally
! guarded, was there anything vitally
wrong in selling TO the Denver & Rio
| Grande right of way over a mile of the
canal embankmentfOr So, 1000? If there
can be anything proved wrong In the
act, then there il something in your
correspondents argument, and if the
error is only in the manner sof doing,
then there is nothing in the argument.
| Your correspondent argues that if the
| farmers of the district of country
through which the projected railroad
will run are to be materially benefited,
they should themselves give the right
property. If this principle were carried
out to the letter, what should we see?
When the Utah &c trial railroad came
! into this city, what mode of procedure
was adopted to allow the ingresS of that
very beneficial institution and element
of progress? Did all hands who were
| to be benefited by its advent
| join in purchasing and donating a
| right of way. ! guess the people
were guilty of giving away somebody
! else's property 1t is generally conceded
! that street belongs indirectly TO the
residents who live upon it. OF course
streets belong also TO the travelling pub
lie, but when you allow a railroad TO
lay its track upon street, upon which
particular street you do not yourself
live, you expect the resident on that
street to give away their especial priyi-
leges and submit to the dangers and
annOyances for the good of others re
mote from that particular spot. But your
| correspondent says now IL a portion OF
1 the country remote from railroad. COM
! pany wants to get the advantage of pub
! lie improvement which viii be improved
not injured by It's use, for the sake of
| cheap transportation, great cry IS
raised about giving away other peoples
property. There appears to my lazy
| mind, to be great difference in peoples
judgment about things, whether the
benefits are coming their way or going
somewhere else. Now ii the city should
! give that right of way, they can guard
their constituents against such harm as
they have unfortunately entalled upon
them in the case above alluded to, and
it is not always railroads that are such
terribly bad corporations to get along
with. 1t perhaps is not extensively
| known, but there are many persons
living on the line OF the canal who are
suffering every year very considerable
damage by the seepage Of the water
from the canal. think can cite you
to instances thatwould aggregate $1,000
year from this cause. This Seepage
can only be stopped in one way. and
that Is by pudding, and if a railroad
ran along its bank and the city had an
arrangement with the railroad 70 haul
clay AT bare cost, it would not be long
until the bottom of the canal would be
as tight as dish where now the earth
is so porous as to admit of seepage. The
sufferers from this cause have appealed
to no offxy for roliaf hut hoUa i'm ~
such a spirit as the city has met from
the d. & Z. G. Although promises were
made by authorized persons that all
damages would be met, from the pres
ent incumbents no redress can be OBJ
tanned BY widening, Strengthening
and sOlidifying the bank, the danger
from breakage would be diminished, and
by hauling clay the seepage would be
stopped, and thus vast and grieYous in
jury would be stayed. 1t is true it
would be impracticable to clean the
ditch by running scrapers over the ties
and iron, but Scrapers could be used /
If there should be sufficient accumula- |
ton to be moved TO make the use of !
scrapers necessary, TO scrape the dirt IN |
piles, and it could then be thrown into |
cars, and the cars haul it away to places !
suitable for its use or waste, or the ac- !
emulation could be thrown onto the !
bank and the railroad company furnish |
men and means 10 move it off all of |
which could be arranged before right of |
way was given. What particular spite /
has your eloquent correspondent, |
Justice" got against the Union Pa
cific railroad2 Does he not remember |
that before that railroad came here we
paid from zoe. TO 40c. per pound for
freight-that the invincible advance of |
progress illustrated in that magnificent |
enterprise has brought US in close prox-
unity to the rest of the world, and given
W the privilege OF enjoying intelligence, |
and luxury, which were
denied Us previous TO its advent? That
railroads have some reprehensible fea-
lures. because of the selfshness Of their
managers, it is true, but we should be
TOO magnaninous to.coDdemn, whole |.
sale. institutions that are only in small
part baG. It is true we have thought
That the Union Pacific made too much
money off Us for coal, but can it be de-
MED that it IS brought very much
cneauer than when We hauled it in
wagons? Your correspondent talks
about the Utah & Northern falling into
tbe hands Of the Union Pacific. The