Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-07-28
rnr spRlNKLlNa TAX.

Tho uuuCNNtNWNNN hAAAN OF"
NEWS last evening that tho Terri
t5rIai tupfomo court hal decided tho
sprinkling tax ordinance u salt Lake
cav 10 he invalid was received with
satisfaction by the people generally
Who have felt that the manner 10
which the tAE was levied was
grievous injustice TO moal OF Tue
propsfty owners affected. The ofil'
nance provi led ior apccial tex OF
seven cents per foot frontage ON All
streets sptlnkled. When the levy wa
made IA 1891 IL was protested against
~ number OF taSrayer'' A. IN all
instances Of this Kind, where
resistance IL TO be- made 10 AZ
unjust enactment, it h neous'
,afy for some one ~ take tho iuilia'ory |
sep. The contest against the h7tclal
spnnkl.ng tax was beaded by D. H.
Pettit, l. o., who held the position OF
city councillor Tor u term previous 90 |
Tho time Of the prsiste Of m'
ordlaancv, and who 10 that capacity
had given attention &, the eIeri
sprlnkling subject. He took ny ihe
nght In earnest, and Notwithstanding
that Inc case won't against his side In
Tue district court, no persisted In carry
ing ON tue struggle, AMI through the
able presentation by his attorneys oil
u tho cause In the higher court hts
secured u great triumph ON behalf ot
The people.
10 tne court Mr. Petit and his con-
f.etrs cot out that tue city had
levied tax upon their prop
erty to ray for sprinkllng, anu threat
sned 10 eniorcc the collection by sell
log the property n tho tax was not
paid at once. They insisted that such
tale would be an irrepaablo injury to
thrm, a, the tax sought TO no enforced
was intquitable ana Illegal and they
asked relief from tho court ruis com
plalnt was domurrei 10 Ia the district
court, the demurrer Sustained and au
npIeal taken. On the appeal Ia,
sipftmo court, In 10 unanimou
opinion, held tnat while the statute
gave the city power to levy taxes ~
cal assessment for sewerage, paving
aud other like purposes, including
street improvements and repairs
authority to levy such tax FOR stree
sprlnklug had not been granite
in,xpre,s tetms; anl further, that al
street spunkling was not permanon
improvement, the clause empowering
the corporation to levy a tax for im
ptoyemopts Jill not apply to sprinkling
therefore the ordinance passed by ih'
CITY Council was without authority o
law, aud void,
A. tue matter now stands, those win
paid the tax under protest must be 70
inbursod by the city; few who per
miued their property TO be sold raihe
than pay the tax alsl must have thoi
property Tito cleared by the muniol
panty. As for those who paid the TAI
without ItotesuuHs should they cutersul
Tor its recovery because VI wrongful col
lection, the value OF their claim mui
be Determined by the courts. Ia an
event the city must refund o0nsidu
able sum which II has collected.
For the uupleaunt prodicament /
which tue municipality nHis itself
regard to tho sphukllug business, III
blame belongs 10 the city counoiio
who, elected In February, 1870, pssst
the ordinance, and their advisors
the PROMISES. Il was urged 100 a "pr
gressvtp measure by Ne advocates, b'
In fact the ordinance was ou.rage1usl
unjust IN its design, sud a CouuC
which possessed due regard for q
rights OF the taxpayer never won
nave enacted Il. lis untairnoss h
been patent from the INST, 81
IL 10 not 10 bo w9ulri
that the people feel relieved by
being swept away. II the oriinuu
had not been I'D grossly oppressive
itsdialribuuun OF burdens as clmpau
with tho benefits received, it Is DO
probable that there would have Dc.
ans contention ngeinst 10. The ci
wuf empowered 90 "lgvy and collie
local tax,s, iu proportion 10 Ucnenr
IN Districts created uut the apriukiIl
lax I8yy was ou. OF all proportion
tCn,a,s Tor tho greater pant OF tp.
who had to pay tns tax, hence O
dght against H.
The street sprinkling, however ID
necessity. Not that its ON
zion would ue the mnustrous wro
hat some would hay5 10 appel
but stll 1t Is necessity to the col
iort aud health Of the iuhsbltau
As we'll as to the good condition Of I