The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-05-01

night, as predicted in The Herald. re-
pealed the special tax lighting ordin-
ance.
The committee on Improvements, as
stated in this paper exclusively, de-
cided on this action Monday and at
last. nights meeting presented the fol-
lowing report. which was adopted:
Your committee on improvements. to
whom was referred a petition Of Joseph
II. Walker, L. Auerbach q, Bro, +. D.
Waterman and others, requesting the city
council 70 pay for the lighting Of the
streets of Salt Lake City out of the gen
eral funds, beg leave to report that they
have given this matter the attention that
its magnitude would justify, and here
2<.h return briefly their views upon this
NTDrtant question.
It is hardly necessary TO go fully into
the history Of this lighting matter, but
1t Is not out of place to briefly remind the
members that when the present city
council came into power they found that
the corporation of Salt Lake city was
paying about $4,000 per year, or $3.50
lamp per month for 215 lights. The
contract ended on the 31st of December,
1894 Shortly after the council reduced
the number of lights from 275 TO 100, and
by agreement with the company it was
temporarily arranged to have the lights
furnished at SO lamp per month. That
after repeated efforts your committee
succeeded, with your assistance and ap-
proval, in making contract with the
electric light company to furnish lights
for the ensuing year at $3.50 per month
for each lamp, a reduction of about one
third of the original cost, thereby getting
500 lights for about $4,000 per year.
The next question was how to get the
money. Your committee believed then
# believes now, that the lighting was a
local benefit, and should be paid for by
local assessment. That no person should
be required to give greater compensation
for the light received than the absolute
cost TO furnish It. Added TO this the
then apparent necessity of raising means
Immediately to pay for lighting impelled
your committee to recommend to this
, honorable body the adoption of the system
of special local taxation to support this
public measure. The matter was referred
10 z commission duly appointed under the
law; and they with the aid of the attor-
ney of Salt Lake city, have made their
report to the council, with which your
honorable body are familiar. By refer
ence to the report it viii be seen that
your committees ideas, as well as the
councils, that the tXation should be
borne by those for whose benefit it was
made in exact proportion to the costs
thereof had not been. carried out, and,
from what conversation your committee
had with the commission, and with the
attorney for the city it seems impossible
undo the statute under which they op-
eersteu, to make the assessment otherwise
- they have done.
Sfter looking into the assessment as
sEr as has been practicable, your COM
1nittee are satisfied that the same is emil
nen W fair, taken from the basis on which
the c. omission deemed it necessary to
operate but it is none the less a disap-
pointment to your committee and to
majority of this council, and. in the re-
sult of things, is about the same to the
taxpayers, as if taken from the general
funds.
In view Of these facts, and the addi-
tional fact that from the treasurer's re-
port * seems the city viii be in funds
until nearly about the time for the pay
rnent of taxes; and the further fact that
the Electric Light company signifies
willingness to give necessary time to pay
for lighting; and, still further, and most
of all that this special assessment seems
very unpopular, and very unsatisfactory
10 the citizens at large, whose servants
the members of the city council are,
eyour committee IS constrained to recon-
mend that the ordinance making special
assessment for the payment of the street
lighting be repealed, and that the costs
thereof be taken from the general funds.
Before leaving this question your COM
mittee will state that they have examined
the statetes under which the assessments
were made, and they are satisfied that
this snecial taxation could be enforced,
but it is barely possible there has been
some mistakes made in levying the as
sessments that might compel the city
council to order a new one. In the end,
however. the city would prevail; but the
Views of the people coming UP on every
side against this special taxation, cam
not be ignored by the city council; and
your committee feel that while they are
of the oDinion that the prejudice against
local taxation is based upon an INSULT
Of no We
they have no right to fly in the face of
the views of the people, or act contrary
70 the wishes of a great majority so
plainly expressed.
The motion to adopt, made by Mr.
%Neweli gave O'Meara a chance to say
NE did not want to vote to say he en-
6orsed the idea that the tax was cor
rect. He wanted ''tc adopt the last
end of it and reject the front end"
Mr.. Young remarked that the report
represented the views of the commit
tee, and that in his opinion Mr..
O'Mearas criticism was not accurate. |
Mr.. Cohn explained the views Of the
committee, which had no motive save |
TO acquiesce in the will of the ma
jority of the people. The taxpayers |
want the money taken out Of the gen.
eral fund. and from the general fund |
il must be taken. Hy way of eXplana-
ton of the lighting matter, Mr.. Cohn |
said many people 1abored under the |
impression that the mayor had once !
vetoed this ordinance. The mayor !
signed this ordinance in an hour; it |
was the contract at $3.50 per month per |
lamp which he disapproved.
MIR Young argued in favor of the re-
mort while he believed that the spec |
ial tax was a valid one. he desired to |
obey the mandate of the taxpayers
Mr.. Clawson declared in favor, not |
saalv of repeating the ordinance, but |
cssAs--trsutract also. The lights are in a
the ssss<ssict and if paid for from |
I'M IN General fund those outside the
+rict win have TO pay for something
they do not get. Then to stop the
cIarlor more lights will have TO be
put in. This will result in an increased
expense. The contractor, the electric
light company. gets all the benefit.
2 The report was adopted. Hardy vot-
fng no. Mason. absent: O'Meara, ex-
6used.
Silver Convention.
Mr.. O'Meara introduced the follow
il E which was adopted in part:
" hereas. As the Hon. Governor Rick
ards, of the state Of Montana has shown /
his -ood judgment by selecting The CITY
of Salt Lake as the place for holding the
silver conference on May 18th next, anu
as the action Of this convention will be
reported in all the newspapers IN the
United States, and as every citizen has
personal interest in the matter that will
be before the convention; and
Whereas. The city of Salt Lake will