The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-12-21
Interesting Affidavit In the Ogden
WaterworkS Suit
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES
COURT BIZ DEFENDANTS.
Allege That Owing to Prejudice
Against Jarvis and Conklin,
They Cannot Get Justice In the
State Courts - Statements of a
Sensational Nature.

An affidavit of an interesting charac-
ter was yesterday filed in the United
States circuit court in the case Of Og-
den City VS.. the Bear Lake and River
Waterworks and Irrigation company,
the Bear River Irrigation and Ogden
Waterworks company, Samuel M. Jar
Wis and Roland R. Conklin. The suit
was filed in the Second State judicial
district court at Ogden and on motion
of the defendant was transferred to
the United States circuit court on the
grounds that some of the defendants
were not residents of the state of Titan.
Then came the plaintiff and filed mo-
ton in the circuit court asking that the
case be sent back to the state court
and the defendants in resisting this
motion filed the affidavit referred to.
The Opponents are d. Van Dam and
w. II. Rowe and they depose that the
defendants. Samuel H. Jarvis and Ro-
land r. Conklin. of whom the depon-
ents are the agents and attorneys, are
residents of the state of New York and
that owing to local prejudice and inf1u-
ence Jarvis and Conklin and the other
defendants in the action will not be
able to obtain justice in the state
courts and that no party to the suit
will be prejudiced by trial in the cir
cult court.
Atlantis further state that such pre-
iudice and local influence has been en-
gendered against the right of the de-
PENDANTS to own or control the water
works system by which the city of Og-
den is supplied with water and which
the defendants constructed and do
own, that they cannot obtain a fair
trial in the state courts: that the city
through it's mayor and city council
and the agents, have subsidized the
Ogden candard and a large number of
other newspapers, to publish all over
the state of Utah that the defendants
had no right or title to the water
works and that the same should be the
property of the city of Ogden; that
they have caused the agents and ser
wants of the defendants to be car
TONED and made ridiculous and have
advised the people of Ogden not to pay
their water rentals to the company and
the mayor and city council have neg
lected to pay water rentals for certain
fire hydrants which they had agreed
to pay and nave by other methods I'M
dertaken to poison and prejudice the
minds of the people of the state of
Utah and the state courts by paid pub
LEGATIONS in the newspapers aforesaid.
It is further stated that pursuant to
the general plan of the city to break
down and destroy the defendants and
manufacture local prejudice against
them, an ordinance was passed by the
city council by which the city was per-
mitteo to issue $250O00 in bonds, with
which to construct a competitive sys-
TEN of waterworks and for the purpose
of gaining the approval of the people
for such ordinance the council subsi-
died space in newspapers in which the
agents of the defendants We're car
TONED and made ridiculous and caused
false matter to be distributed and so
poisoned the minds of the people that
the ordinance mentioned received the
approval of a large majority of the peo-
pie of Ogden, who We're led to believe
that the defendants were not entitled
TO any part Of the water system. that
they had obtained it through fraud and
that it ought to be confiscated to the
city and that the suit was brought for
that purpose.
1t is also alleged that the city coun-
Gil caused to be published false state
ments to the effect that the water sup
piled by the defendant was impure and
fouled with deleterious matter which
caused disease. It is charged that the
people of Ogden We're taught to be-
lieye that because Jarvis and Conklin
are non-residents of Ogden they ought
not to be permitted to do business in
Ogden or own anything there.
Il is also claimed that the mayor and
city council secured the services of
Messrs. c. c. Richards, J. II. MacMil-
Ian, Richards & Richards and others
as counsel in the case for the political
influence and for their purpose of en-
gendering prejudice against the defend
ants with the courts of the state and
with other people. c. c. Richards, it is
stated, gave special attention to the
election of the judge of the Second
judicial district court and to his eff
forts the success of the judge of said
district is largely attributable The
plaintiff, it is also claimed, employed
Judge c. c. Dey for similar reasons.