Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-12-03
THE "NEwS, INDICATED BY
Mr.. COIN.

against them.
THE "NEwS- INDICATED BY
Mr.. COIN.
IL THE City Council session Of
last evening the subject of amend
ing the ordinance on cemetery was
taken in hand. 1t will be remem-
bered that the committee on ceme-
terry offered an amendment to the
same ordinance q few weeks ago.
Its object was to increase the maxi
mum price Of burial lots from $50 to
SIPS, n leap that probably has no
precedent in regard to this grave
question in any city in the civilized
or uncivilized world.
The amendment offered at that
time also embodied tina condition
that the sexton's fee for selling lots
ten per cent of tie price-remain
unchanged. Thus that officers fee
alone on n lot at the maximum price
would amount to more than the
highest price charged for any lot in
the cemetery prior 20 1SSs.
Wecharaclerizei the proposed in
crease Of price, the scope Of the sex
tons discretion in the matter of
charges, and the fees connected with
The proposed neH condition as FORM
ing an outrage that had every ap-
pearance Of jobbery. That opinion
remains unchanged. Those who
have real the NEWS articles on the
subject are aware that the position
was sustained by facts and figures,
which have not been refuted, be-
cause they cannot be overturned.
Mr. Louis Cohn, a member Of the
committee on cemetery, took occa-
sion last evening to perform the
s'baby act" Pointing to cur re-
porter in she Council cham
Der, as if the latter Were
the NEWS, he said this
journal hal slandered the commit
tee in treating on the subject of the
proposed amendment to the orii-
nance. All that We have done has
been to protect the people against
what we regarded as an inexcusable
imposition. And we defy Mr..
Cohn to refute the facts and fig
ures We have presented. We hurl
the insinuation back in his teeth
and state that he utters a SANDER
when he makes any such assertion
as he did yesterday evening, and We
will now proceed to show that he
himself, in the amendment pre-
sentei by him last night and which
pissed the council, proved the cor
rectness Of our position through.
out.
We held that the proposed increase
vas outrageous aud exec ssive, that
the discretion regarding prices
given the sexton was too wide and
lax, aud that his fees were made
lhsurily high. At the same time
that Mr.. COhn stated that this
journal had slapdered him because
Il assuming this attitude regarding
the outrage he proposed to perpe-
rate at the suggestion of sexton
Dunno, .he conceded all three Of
the points we had insisted upon.
The amendment presen ted by him
last Right proves this to a demon.
.tration.
The measure presented Icy Mr..
Cohn last night was entirely diff
ferent in essential points from the
one which drew forth our structures.
Ii provides thus:
That the price of lots be increased
as follows: In plat G, to 500; plat
2 and q, So; in plat r, S25; and
that the price Of "inside lots, be in
creased TO SIS.
This comedies the position of the |
NEWS on two OF the three points
in the former proposition
to which We took exception. III 1t
lowers the proposed maximum
price Of lots from Sl25 to 500, a
Of SIS. ~ 1t takes away
The wide discretion OF the Sexton
regarding the price to be placed
upon the respective lots.
There only needs one more con-
,essien to cover the ground and es-
ablish fully aud completely Mr..
cohn's acknowledgment Of the
Of the structures of this
is the apparent job
'ery Of continuing the ten per cent
ee to the sexton under the in
reased maximum price for lots
& SIS in place of $50. He
you'd thus have received more
han five times the amount of fee
n lot of the highest price than .
'as allowed under the old ordinance. /,
he amendment presented last
light by Mr.. Cohn, and which
assed the Council, provides that on {
ne sale of each lot up to SIS the !
,xton shall receive the usual ten {
er cent. On all lots sold over that :
rice n fee Of $3.50 on each sale. I
his covers the ground We took on c
lat phase Of the subject as fairly as I
'uld be desired. We stated in
distance that the proposition I
the fee question in the G
nendment to the ordinance 9
rst proposed, indicated g desire 7
the part Of Mr.. Dunno to d
ork the cemetery for all it was
orth, and that the committee were
identity not far in the rear.
leir proposal showed beyond rea-
nable doubt that they intended to
'ist him in carrying out his 3.
heme. The proof of this lies in the .
t that the intention was receded