Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1889-12-16


the several selectmen presented biI
al to the court "fcr services render
To- for viewing roads and bridges, /" al
" then it Is said that the labor on ia
e. roads was paid for without the ''wri
al ten approval Of any county ofiicia
O. who claimed to have persons
o. knowledge that the work charge
&c Cor was actually and properly done.
T. This is on n par with the rest Of tn
J. report. The members Of the count
n court personally examined the worh
- in an official capacity, and the
Is paid for it without securing fron
= some one n "written approval.
+ And for this the court is charged
c with being grossly culpable." Thu
: same line Of reasoning Is adopted a.
5 to other instances.
The surplus canal is made an ob,
ject Of attack. The record is quoteC
from, and the assertion made thai
the court refused to make any ap-
proprIation." Then IL is said thai
when Mr.. Fox made some payments
son his own authority" the court
approved them. The record as
quoted in the report shows that no
refusal such as was claimed ever was
made, and the statement regarding
Mr.. Fox is proven TO be untrue by
the subsequent language Of the re-
port relative 10 the final action Of
the county court upon the surplus
canal, the substance Of which is that
OF the $40, 200 which the canal cost.
one-third was paid by the county,
one-third by the city, and one-third
by the inhabitants along the line Of
the canal, and that each party re-
ceives about equal benefit there
from.
The subject Of canals is also ma
nipulated in a way to deceive. Ii
is stated that the county funds were
diverted and Incorporated to the
building Of these canals upon the
pretense that it was 4 benefit TO the
county, Is there any sane man
who is acquainted with the results
Of taking out the jordan water who
viii not say that this benefit is no
pretense but is 4 solid fact. from
which the county has received
many times the amount expended.
and the inhabitants been benefited
to an enormous extent? The subject
Of canals is dismissed with a refer
ence 10 the hydraulic canal and the
one-sixth interest held by the
county in the dam and the Jordan.
OF this 1t is said, "we do not believe
the county ever had the slightest
Of a title TO any waters Of
the jordan River" and gives as n
a reason that "the whole volume of
The river was vested in individual
appropriations long prior to the build
ng Of the so-called county DAM
This Is n misstatement, and the fact
must be known TO the jurors who ,
ave resided here any length oftime.
+ the water was appropriated long
'efore the dam was built, how is it :
nat the canal companies get water ,
It that dam under deed from the
ounty? Or how could the water be
appropriated until the dam had been
lade to store it and bring it toa
syel where st could he taken out
nd used?
Reference is made TO the fact that ,
george Crlsmon, as collector, owed {
he county 500, O24Oi which was
hargcd to relief account. But the
ePort carefully conceals the fact Z
hat the great bulk Of this was I'M
objected taxes, which Mr.. Crismon {
'as not in equity responsible for.
'or does il refer to that which the
rand jury as ''an arm Of the dis
net court" must have been aware =
!, that the settlement with Mr.. :
.rismon's bondsmen was made by q
nit in the Third District Court. .
18th the present chief justice on the !
ench. :.
Owe ind the defalcation Of d. .
iockholt, late county clerk, to be ),
Il,0@S.60." That is all the report :,
.ys on the matter. Why is it silent =
n the point which is n matter Of Il
cord in the Third District Court a
lat Mr.BockhoIt was indicted, aud Il
led before his case. could he brought .
, trial? =
The detective service Of lie coun- :,
is made an object Of disapproval. =,
he report actually says that the =
unity paid for one detective. and :
e sheriff at various times paid for
.ditiOnal detective work. Whit III =.
, did? Is he confined to one, when l.,
e public welfare in the suppress -,
IN Of crime requires more? h,
The county court has paid fees for a
nploying extra attorneys when it Or
Is considered that the circum- ar
'nces made it necessary. This is m
ade the ground Of another obiec- M
N, and the "Vandercook ha5eaS 81,
rpus CASE is cited, with the re. co
ark that the '.records nowhere TN
ow that the county was n party to m,
e suit The records show that nh
putty Marshal Vandercook
Is arrested, and as the case In,
Is brought under the law Of the IN,
rritory, it was the county's duty vi
carry it just as far as the county
mt. This is shown by the record
d the statute, rs the jury ought to co,
ow. 40
The manner in which the Jury h,
ats the management OF city affairs IN,
% manifestly unjust that the intel an
ent reader can perceive the ami m,
IS and misrepresentation at a IN,
nee. if he has taken pains to in no
N himself at all upon the sub
l. The efforts of the Mayor and -.
uncil to procure an adequate "a,
ter supply receive special atten- cor
n. The arrangement entered Of
o with farmers who had claims thu
IN Rarley's Greek to exchange ing
irrigating water from the Jordan
Salt Lake Canal and the pur- the
lse Of two mill sites are referred JoI
as egregious blunders; the pro- tiol
ing Of deed for an additional a 4