The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-10-17

paper reporters would be able to give
the public fair idea of the subject
which Mr.. Ritter had made so plain.
Mr.. WEBER ais D objected to it going
to the finance committee. In going
over the ground again, they could but
reiterate.
Mr.. RITTER withdrew the motion.
On motion of Mr.. Dooly. who under
stood that among the protests were
some from people who had owned
property at the time the assessment
roll was made out, but who had since
disposed of it, the recorder was in
structed to carefully sift the protests
referred to him. On motion of MEM
Der, Mr.. Dooly was delegated to assist
him.
The reading of the following protests
followed:
JOHN S. BARNES
writes as follows;" Il protest against the
present plan of sewerage for the follow
ing reasons, to wit
Flrst-Because l think the district is
too large to begin with; it includes
property that will not need sewerage
for long time to come, and will entail
Ou many WIZ are uOG
able to meet the tax.
1t is only the centre of the proposed
district that really needs sewerage, and
tbs owners of property in that part of
the district are not only able but should
be perfectly willing to pay for what
they SO much need and. again, think
it would be better to cut the district
down at least one-half. until it is sure
thing how it is going to work, and then
enlarge the district as necessity requires
it.
These are few of my reasons for pro-
testing against the present plan of sew
erage."
S. & G.. sTRoNGFELLoW.
1--WE think the entire city should be
supplied with puIe water for domestic
use first"
CLAUDIUs VICTOR SPENCER.
Il enter my protest against sewerage
not as benedcent, but against sewerage
as contemplated in extent and mode of
operation in what is termed District
No. l."
B. H. SHELTER.
"There are three or four probably, or
half dozen places along West Temple
Street, where sewerage would be great
convenience, but should the owners of
these places demand sewerage at the eX-
pense of hundreds of citizens, who have
positively no use for sewerage? Ger
tainly not!
EVERY person who has lived here
any length of time knows that sewerage
would neither improve the health nor
the finances of the city, but work
great hardships to many who
have no u5e whatever for sewerage
Many more reasons might be assigned
why sewerage would be more of an in
jury than benefit to our citizens, but
the above are sufficient. Trusting We
shall hear no more OF sewerage for the
next ten years"
ELIZABETH HOLLYWOOD
Begs to enter her protest against the
plan proposed, being firmly convinced
that the expense necessarily incurred
would not be equalled by the practical
benefits resulting thereflom.
SARAH E. SMITH
protests: because it will increase my
taxes. which are already high, and i'm
pose upon me costs and expenses which
will be oppressive, without adequate
CORE spending benefits as far as l can
see. l think the enterprise, il other
wise feasible, is premature for the
wealth and population of the city, and
is in the interests of the few who are
rich, at the mercy of the many who are
poor"
DAVID JAMES
protested for reasons similar to those
above given by Mr.. Morris.
JANE RoMNEY
was unable, at the present time, to bear
the expense.
JAMES CHEsNEY,
who is now in Fremont, Neb, thought
the district entirely too large; tina the
proposition would work hardship on
the poor, and the assessed valuation
was not prop ito ate.
There were 81 large number of
QUIET Got WAO gave uO
reason, save that they did not want
sewerage. Below is the list:
G H Crow, Sarah E Smith
Richards Brothers, John NJ. Young,
Nancy R chards, lydia Merrill,
Woolley, Young and Whitmore,
Hardy Company, John II. Bailey.
Harriet B. Young, John Needham,
L w Richards, D Stuart,
H Clawson, isl Barnes.
John Cutler, M W Taylor,
Ann L. Whitney, Christine Rockwell,
Alice Watt NJ A Moroni Cannon |
Youpg Brothers, George NJ. Cannon,
Watson Brothers, Zera Snow ct al.
] H Parry & Co, rs ate Snow,
ToSanh w Tay1Or IT G. Arm strOn o. /