The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-11-22

along. Business will naturally seek other
sections where the inconveniences and
dangers are not so numerous. The prop
erty owners have combined in a suit to
prevent the depreciation of value which
viii follow the laying of the third track
and the additional row OF poles.
In neither. of these cases is the nuisance
which 1t Is proposed to maintain necessary.
In neither instance should the nuisance
have been permitted. If it had been neces-
sary, which it was not, for both companies
70 run cars along the residence street re-
1erred to, one track would have been suf-
nclent for the accommodation of both lines.
Neitner would be in the least inconyeni-
enced by using the same track, and if this
were done the public could still enjoy the
use OF the street. The traffic will never be
SO great on Second South street that two
tracks Will be insufficient to accommodate
1t, and there is no reason why the cars of
Two companies, all operated by the same
system, cannot be run over those tracks
without the least interference with each
other.
We do not pretend to know what the law
Is IN this matter, but right and Justice both
say that the injured property owners and
the public-for everybody is interested in
having the streets kept free from un-
necessary obstructions-should win both
these suits and the railway companies be
restrained from further imposition upon
private or public rights. The law may be
such that contemplate city council and
soulless railway companies may be able to
combine to iniure private citizens and the
community and leave no redress; of this we
shall not assume to say, the Interpretation
and application of the statutes being for the
courts. But we will say this, that what
eyer malicious and unjust thing the law
may permit the railways to do, the course
whlchithe latter are pursuing, the disregard
OF individual and community rights which
they are practicing will certainly
prove expensive and disastrous to the
companies. The council may give them
license to offend and do wrong, but thew
cannot afford to offend. The council.
through inherant malice or corruption,
may grant them the right to practically
conhscate street to their own use to the
exclusion of the public, but they cannot at
ford to take advantage of that grant. They
cannot afford to arouse an antagonistic
public sentiment which will be more
powerful than statutes in placing restric-
lions upon the grasping corporations and
bringing the latter to respect rights and
pay some regard to decency. Such a pub
lie sentiment is fast being aroused, and it
will go on very rapidly if there is much of
TINS unnecessary appropriation of the
streets to the exclusion of those for whose
use they were intended. One of these
days there will go forth decree to compel
the razing to the ground of every pole
which now obstructs the streets and the
burying of the network of wires which
makes our thoroughfares veritable death
traps. We warn the street railway com
panies that they are treading on dangerous
ground We advise them to go slower and
pay more attention to the rights of this
for it is within the power. and
Is likely soon to be in the disposition of the
community to call such halt as will cause |
the hoggish companies to wish they had
been less greedy and more considerable.