Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-02-24
DON'T DE- IN A HURRY


form, 10 induce the city 10 hand ovei
the block known as Old Fort Square e
the projectors Of railroad company, has
made quite stir In the community
We publish communication today
which we believe expresses the Views
Of n large majority Of the citizens
We regard them m the proper arbiter'
In the dispute that Has arisen about this
piece Of property. We consider the
land belong. 70 them aud not TO III,
City Council.
II IL an important legal question
whether that body has any right lo
give, sell or otherwise dispose OF that
property without tho consent OF tbs
owners---that l., the people. That
question ought 10 be decided before
anything further IL done In the matter.
Ifthe city Council has legal power
TO dispose Of the square, Il will then be
In or,lcr 10 determine whether u ought
TO bc sold Mt all. Public policy, public
needs aud public opinion ought TO he
duly considered. Ia II wise, IA Il noccs-
sary, IL Il In accord with the wishes OF
the majority 10 soil that square? II
20, then the price offered must be fairly
weighed. In connection with that the
public benefits to be derived from the
railroad project which the transfer OF
the land Is expected to assist must he
investigated.
Nothing should 10 done rashiy.
There is no need for terrible hurry.
or course the gentlemen who want the
land want II badly, and they want u
now. That IA very natural. We aay
nothing against them nor their anxiety.
but the CITY Council need not get Into
furry. Better he n little slow than
10 mRksa hasty blundcr.
The reference which Is being malc
10 what has been done In regard TO rail-
roads Il not good argument In relation
10 the present. What was done In the
old times was done under the impress
sion that the Council had more powers
than later decisions OF courts have
shown they possessed. IL wins done
with an honest and sincere belief TINT
II was for the public benefit. The body
Of tho people endorsed II and there WINS
no public protest against II. What
might have boon emincntly proper
then may possibly he very improper or
impolitic now. Property. too, was Of
far lcss value at that time than today,
and therefore tho disposal Of land for
such purposes did no, assume the im-
portance TINT attaches To II at present.
We have no disposition TO put q
straw In the way Of any enterprise that,
however profitable II may promise u
be TO individuals, IL likely to 10 Of
public convenience. OF course the
projectors Of the Deep Greek railway
expect 10 make money out OF II. II
the enterprise Is to be OF public benefit,
that should be enough 10 recommend
It no matter how much money individ
uala may make out Of II, NO long NJ they
do not get their money out Of publ,
property or In nm Improper why.
II seems TO he generally conceded
that the Deep Creek railroad Will bc o
great profit to this city and Territory
That being 10, Il II necessary TO th'
success Of tho project TINT publi'
square shall bo turned over 10 the Com
panyg IL 10, viii the public interest
be better conserved by holding III,
square, Us originally designed, for
public park within the city, or rclin
gushing Il 10 railroad company for
depot within this city? Hnve.we not 10
many depot blocks already? Is II goo
policy to multiply them? Cannot ney
railroads obtain depot grounds outsld
Of settled districts which will answe
their purpose. without penetrating 10
near Into the centre Of town?
We presume some OF the enthusiast
persons who arc urging on this schem
will complain Of these queries and cal
them obstructive. Wa care nothinI
for that They are proper question
and ought TO be considered. And the.
are not the true friends Of tho publ
who desire TO rush through any schem
TO divert public property for prlvat
use without full aud impartial investi
CATION.