The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-08-28
IN THE CITY COUNCIL.
4he Utah Western Franchise is
Given a Cold Shoulder.
CITY CREEK CAMPING CEASES.
The Ninth Street Canal-The Wells at Lehi-
The Water Question Extension of Water
Mains-Gas-0t Business.


The city council met in regular session
last evening, and after the reading of the
minutes Councillor Sharp moved that that
portion of the minutes with reference to
the franchise being granted to John w.
Young to build line Of railroad along
Fourth West street.-the expunged. Hesaid
in support Of has motion:
Y THAT FRANCHISE.
"My reason for Directing to tho motion
on franchise and asking that it be expunged
fcom the minutes is because there are
1%mber of the residents of the city who
objected to it. lay it down as a PROPOSE
ton that railway on a street is very
dangerous thing This company is not
struggling for an entrance to the CITY and
will be Of no special benefit to the city.
Now, let US sec what we have done This
franchise provides for three railroad cross
ings, and as all trains must stop when
within short distance of a crossing, 1t Will
be a great inconvenience" He then out
lined the cuurse the road would take, and
said that he believed it was dangerous to
have one railroad on a street, and two
would not lessen the danger. 81 under
stand further than this, that the people in
that neighborhood are not pleased, but are
highly incensed. The r1ght-ofway could
be secured over the other railroad"
Alderman McCornick-Yes, but they are
of different guages. How would you remedy
that's
Councillor Sharp would put down a
third rail
Alderman Mccormick suggested that
at the last meeting.
Councillor Sharp have III mind a good
example illustrating the condition in which
it will place property. A certain piece OF
property on the line of this proposed road
was sold for $1,000 but when the parties
learned that a franchise for another road
was granted, they refused to purchase.
This same property would be worth several
zines the amount or some other street. l
hope the motion will prevail.
Alderman Ritter l must express some
surprise at the action of this council. I'M
! derstand that the chairman of the commit
tee on streets had pocl1eted the petition and
did not call the committee together. twill
be remembered that the chairman asked for
instruction, and as there was much COM
plant, it was decided in executive session.
A motion subsequently prevailed that no
more franchises would be granted
for paper corporations and | con-
cluded that the matter was about ended.
II strikes me as there were petitions
and counter petition coming in am III
favor of expunging the question from the
minutes until an equitable decision can be
arrived at. The motion was finally passed
by one majority. An attorney came before
us and stated that the right of way could
not be granted without damaging the peo-
pie who would be entitled to claim much
damage. People were wired to sign the
petition, many signing because they wanted
10 stop the road from coming on their
NK-pr Y
the residents of Fourth West street, and
no attention had been paid to them. The
eyteut 10 which these signatures have
been purchased cannot say, but | under
stand that there is now another petition IN
slSsulation which is soon to be presented.
What benefit is this road to US! If 1t was
some large eastern through line, struggling
TO enter the city, would aid it. l have
never before been against the granting ola
franchise but am not in favor of this
one. He then gave examples OF the iran
chises he had voted for. We have
already, granted franchises to this road
nearly around the city. Then again, it is
of no earthly advantage to the city, buJwlll
some day be sold to some company for
large sum of money. Now, understand
me, do not say will vote against it, but |
will oppose it until the people are willing
and will withdraw their protests. Let us
spit on our hands and try it again and eX-
puQBC LllS lTOu1 UuI AliuutCo III tlAS pros
emit, at least.
Alderman Mccormick agree with the
gentleman. / stated the other night that /
would vote forit provided they could arrange
to move the switches, etc, as was agreed.
They now take up enough space for. two
roads / don't think we should eXpunge it
from the record, but let it go on and be de-
cided hereafter. If corrections are to be
made they will show in due course.
Councillor Sowles-In regard to the fran
chise already granted, opposed the former
one because the people were opposed to 1t,
but the right was granted all the same,
and now that it is in the heart OF the
city, am in favor of letting it out of the
city TO the salt works and the lake where 1t
promises TO open resort.
/ Councillor Roberts, must say have
&een little disappointed in this railroad
franchise. ] am in favor of letting it get
out Alderman Sharp says it was born in
the heart of the city. This Is no reason
why we should keep it in the city. Let
it get it out to the salt works. He has been
here and YOU gentlemen don't want him;
now let him out. 1t does look bad to have
to cross the Utah Central track Alder
man Sharp was the only one who opposed,
and ] notice that he has several councilmen
with him who come here loaded for bear
Councillor Smith: am decidedly in favor
of the last gentleman's opinions l believe
he should be permitted to leave the city. l
am of the opinion that that is the most ap
propriate street for an outlet. As was
manifest last Tuesday evening, about three |
quarters of the population expressed the
desire TO have the road go along this street
and not take new street. have no de |
sire to change my opinion and shall vote to
la e the road go out on this street.
y The motion finally prevailed
Petitions being in order the following
protest against the granting of the fran |
chise of John w. Young'S railroad on |
Fourth West street was presented:
A PROTEST.
II having been presented to your honor |
able body that the residents along Fourth |
West street of said city had waived all OBJ
iections TO your honorable body granting |
franchise to the Utah Western Railroad |
company to build d railway down SAID
Fourth West street to Fourth North street
of said city, and that all the people living
on said street were willing that said road
should be built on said street. we, the sub
scribed, your petitioners, herewith declare
ouch statements TO be untrue and mis-
Representations of the facts. We further
8.taare, as we have in former petition TO
your honorable body on this subject, that
It is not our desire that our hitherto quiet
neighborhood should be turned into a
bustling business centre, thereby making
il doubly moro dangerous for lives and
property to which reference is hereby I
made. A reconsideration of SAID matter to
the effect that said right of way shall not |
be granted, and in duty bound your pet-