Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-11-29

pogtiou there w. . one rod street,
uar.IIel With tho south aide Of the
van. Thb van was taken down,
ths partition formed by 1t being UNI
Necessary. 1t was this additional
rod, formerly separated from the
stssst on the north by the wall, that
w. plated into lots, on the recon-
incubation Of the city surveyor, be-
cause the maps and plats In possession
Of Mr.. Fox showed q two-rod street.
The change was made that these
plats might be conformed to and
that that portion Of the cemetery
might be brought into harmony with
the original intention ofits plan.
The street which MIR. Dunno pro-
poses to manipulate runs through
the central part Of the original GENE
terry north and south, and Is plated
-, and always has been, q three
rod street. The intention was to
run . grass plat up the middle Of it
and plant 1t with rare trees as soon
- water should be procured.
But besides all this IL the main
fact that the innovation desired by
Mr.. Dunno was made the basis for
an excuse for raising the price Of
cemetery lots from so to SIS,
that being his proposal.
But this trifling yet grasping per-
son foisted upon the people by a
"Liberal" Council, has discovered
that Mr.. Patrick-who acted under
authority-had . gigantic incentive
to alter the width Of the avenue re-
ferred 10:
'Le. me also remind you that Rob
ert Patrick, who reduced the width Of
the main avenue. did so with a par
ticular end in view. The records
show that your assistant editor. John
Nicholson, got one Of the new lots fac
ing ON the main avenue, and paid the
muniicen. sum OF SIS for the same.
his deed, No. ESQ, showing this con-
sideratiou."
According to this the object Mr..
Patrick had in view was to sell to
the gentleman naaed by Mr..
Dunno one Of the cemetery lots for
SIS. Now the lowest price charged
for lots is SIC, and the highest $50.
Add to this the fact that the fellow
who talks about fraud knows that
the record shows that every one Of
the lots along the line in question
was sold At SIS each. Ii will there
fore be observed that this absurd in
situation issuing from his peanut
soul, stamps him with the brand Of
fraud.
DUNES logic is this:-Because
Mr.. Patrick charged the width of a
street, under authorization, in order
to make it conform TO the original
design aud the plans and pIats of
the cemetery, he (Dunuel is justi-
fed in contracting the main AMI
central avenue running north and
south, and thus marring the beauty
of the grounds. Because Mr.. Patrick
charged SIS each for the lots thus
formed and was satisfied with
n fee Of si.5o on each sale he
(Dunne) would be justified in
seeking to procure the authoriza-
ton to charge, in his discretion
sl25 for any lot In the cemetery and
pocket a fee Of $3.50 for each sale
made by him at that rate. Because
Mr.. Patrick, under authority, con-
formed portion Of the cemetery to
the platsand maps in POSSESSION of
the surveyor, he DunRel is justified
in rendering the completed maps
and plats partially useless AMI mis-
leading, by changing the face Of the
cemetery to q condition not shown
by them.
1t will be seen a. we 60 along,
that IL would he unnecessary and
superfiuous for anybody to ask the
present sexton II he has ever
thought what n fraud he is. IL he
has not done so 1t is simply because
he is as deficient in discriminating
judgment as he appears to be In
honesty. The evidence is ample.
The next question Is simply i'm
mensr, II shows that the "open
letter " is consistently idio.ic
throughout:
Now let me call your attention to
another matter. Prior to the time
when Robert Patrick became city sex
ton no lot in the city cemetery sold
for more than si2. During his admin
istration the price OF lots rose TO $50.
Why did YOU not object then 10 the
increase in price. II IL Is wrong now
TO raise the price for los. why was il
not wrong in Mr.. Patrick's day?" =.
In the first place the price CT lots
was not raised during Mr.. Patrich's
administration. 1t was fixed by the
cemetery ordnance, which was In
existence before Mr.. Patrick's ap-
pointment. He exclaims, "Nby
did you not object then to the in
crease In price? Probably because
ii may be consistent to raise the
maximum price Of lots by aiding
the moderate sum OF eight dollars.
But there has been an attempt 10
boom the rate from SI2 to
sl25, there would have been
most pronounced objection
to such IN imposition. An
officer at that time who would
have sought to raise the price to
over tentimes the existing amount
would have been justly denounced
as q frIuI. 1t will be seen from
this, what estimate ought to be
placed on officials who make the
proposal now. Then, Mr.. Dunno,
it Is presumed, that because the
maximum price of lots was increased
by an addition Of two-thirjs OF the
sum at which they were formerly
sold. you consider It justifies you in
moving to have the original amount
multiplied by ten, to enable you to
pocket q fee Of $l2.50-one-half dol
lar more than what was formerly
charged for q lot-for a few minutes
work, to say nothing Of the half
dollar for the certificate of sale.
We have not the time nor space
nj command 10 riddle and sift the |