The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-17
THE PENDING QUESTION.

eral public. Our views have not been
acceptable TO some noneyed men and
representatives of capital and corpora
tions, but we have the consolation of
knowing that the masses of the people
are with us.
We would like the promoters Of the
ordinance proposed. in its present
form. to ask themselves the question:
''What would be the result if this mat
ter was submitted to the popular
vote?" Can there be any doubt IN
their minds as to the answer? And
if the great majority OF the citizens
would decide against the measure,
should their representatives in the city
council support it?
The principle on which the tax fea-
ture of the ordinance is based Is a
fanacy. It is the relative benefits to
accrue to the real estate Cor land
claims and improvements within the
district Passing by the question OF
the impossibility Of exactly defining
and determining the differences in
those alleged benefits to property, re-
Election will show that those presumed
benefits do not exist The lamps erect
ed in the streets are for the convent
ence and benefit OF people who use the
streets. They are public service. They
are to light the streets, not the ada
cent property.
But, it viii be claimed, the charter
under which this ordinance is framed
provides for street lighting by the pro-
posed method Of taxation. 1t does per-
haps. Incidentally. But the taxing pro-
visions and the commission regulation
are evidently intended for the other
purposes mentioned in the charter.
erecting lamps and lighting the streets
being but one Of those numerous pur-
poses which include sidewalks and
sewers.
Because of the mention of street
lighting by the method permitted, Of
course it may be claimed that the city
has lawful power to establish it in that
way. But it is not requirement.
Subsequent charter provisions open
the way to other methods which are
more sensible and more adaptable to
present conditions. As we have shown.
the charter Of 1865 was bestowed when
this city had but a small population,
and was designed to divide the city
into districts so that each district
might be supplied with special benefits
as circumstances required, and each
district would pay for its own privt-
1eges, every piece of property therein
contributing its proper quota of the
expense.
Now we have population four
times as great Now the proposition
is to make almost the entire city &
lighting district. And yet because an
antiquated plan. adapted to the for
mer situation. is still permissible in
law. wise men are seeking to force 1t
upon the city under altogether different
conditions to please minority Of the
citizens.
The fact that an insufficient tax rate
was levied last year forms no justifi-
cation for imposing a special tax, on
a cumbersome, unfair and illogical
principle, this year. If the city council
are disposed to make arrangements,
there is no doubt the money part Of
the matter can be disposed of by pay
ment after the taxes of this year come
in. The prospect OF strong conpeti-
ton will soon settle that matter. And
the city authorities should not close
their eyes to the expected competition.
The mere fact that, technically, the
city council have power to do this
thing, and that probably the courts
would decide in their favor-Which is
not by any means a certainty-does
not justify the imposition OF an in
equitable and unpopular tax when
there are fairer and better methods
which are undoubtedly lawful. And if
the question of the legality Of the pro
vision should be unquestioned or de-
cided in its favor, how about the Hti-
cation that may arise over disputes as
to the fairness and justice of the ap-
portionment by the commissioners?
The city council might have a huge
equalization Job to meet, and litigation
for a long time when that was ended.
The right way viii be found in the
end the easiest and the cheapest way.
Street lighting is. beyond fair dispute,
what the phrase denotes. at is in the
class of sanitary arrangements and
public conVen1ences. The expense
should come out Of the public funds
as it always has come up to the pres
ent date. If the funds are insufficient.
they are equally 50 for other expenses
of the same class and by a 1udicious
contract payment can be made when
the city is in funds. Let us have light,
but let US also have sense and con-
sistency.