Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-03-28
THE LATE CITY COUNCIL

THE LATE CITY COUNCIL
Our unesteemed Liberal" morn
ing contemporary takes great de-
light in assailing 'sthe late City
Council.v That the truth is no
obstacle In It's way Is too well
known TO need any demonstration
on our part. But it would seem
that common prudence would pre-
vent its frequent assertions, contra
dicted by the public records.
This morning II consumes n large
amount Of editorial space on the
basis Of the error, that 'the late City
Council" granted to the Salt Lake
Railway Company "a new char.
ter permitting il TO estab-
lish a double track street rail-
way over all the principal streets
Of the city and connecting with all
the depots." This, it says, "was
fought by the Liberals in the Coun-
ell and its iniquities fully pointed
out, F." hut all amendments offered
were "sullenly and unanimously
voted down by the majority" 1t
then goes on to talk OF the "fraud"
of II and the "gift TO favorites" and
much more similar nonsense.
The facts thAt"the late City Coun-
clip did nothing Of the kind, and
that the franchise under which the
salt Lake City Railroad Company
claims the right to operate on First
Fast Street is fifteen years old,
do not weigh n feather in the
party-blind eyes Of the reckless
Tribune. The opportunity to beSate
s'the late City Council''and deal cut
a little very doubtful "tahy" to the
.'Liberal'' members was enough for
the scribe, and so he turned loose.
But he also says that the Railway
company ''claim' that "the late
| City Council granted TO IT.; this
"new charter" Anyone who has
read the accounts OF the controversy
Of the past two or three days, knows
that the company have made 10
such claim but avow that they are
proceeding under their old fran
chise.
In another part OF the same paper
the revised ordinances Of the city
are held up to animadversion and
ridicule, on the alleged ground
that while they prescribe that
owners Of public buildings
must provide means Of es-
cape from fire, under the direction
Of the Inspector Of Public Build
ings, yet "tliere Is no clause fixing
a penalty for the violation Of any OF
these sections" 1t then cites u
fragment Of Section 80, Chapter 20,
OF the revised ordinances, and re-
peats the above assertion, comnliser-
atiDg with the successor Of the pres
ent inspector and calling for revi-
sion, which 1t says, in black capt.
tails, is t'WASTED AT ONCE"
Now let us see how much truth
there Is in its assertions and how
much cause there il for its sensa-
tional call. Section Of Chapter Is
says in regard to the failure Of any
owner or agent 10 act ubder the
notification OF the Inspector OF
Buildings, that he shall con con.
viction thereof be fined not more
than one hundred dollars" and
adds: .
"And in like manner any owner or
agent Of any building or any architect
or contractor employed in or about a
building who shall violate any pro-
vision Of this chapter or Of Chapter &c
Of this ordinance where no other PEN
atty is provided, shall upon convio-
lion, be fined no; more than hundred
dollars"
1t is very easy TO find fault, but
not always so easy TO be accurate.
II the hasty person who WAS so eager
to find fault with "the late City
Council'' had only examined the
first chapter Of the revised ordin
ances which he wants revised, but
seems to know nothing about, he
would have found penalty pro-
vided covering all ordinances, pres
ent or future, and providing a PEN
atty for their violation when no
other is specially prescribed.
The late City Council performed
a great amount OF labor in a consci-
entious and able manner. II the
present City Council shall prove to
be half as good as the old, the DEs-
Fret NEWS will not initiate its I'M
esteemed ''Liberal' contemporary
in carping and exaggerated objec-
tons, and certainly not In msnulae-
turing grievances which have no
substantial existence.