Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-06-21
COUNCIL REJECTS
MAJORITY REPORT
Special Committee in City Engineer
Matter Makes Two Reports,
NO CONCLUSION Is REACHED
warm Discussion Majority Findings
90 over-ciU Tax Levy OF EiHhu
uiiis Recommended.

Go ONer-tity Tax Lew OF Right
wins Recommended.
Politics and water cut wide swath
ne last nights city Council meeting.
The special committee appointed 60 In
vestiTate the doinFa or the engineers
department and the Fornstrpm rcaolu.
ton brought In two reports. Tho ma
jority report signed by Fornstrom.
Howe and Weller read as follows.
MAJORITY REPORT
whereas. The engineer Ia reporting
expenditures on Jan. TO- stated that De-
had expended f2.stsg5 ca Jan. .. 1899.
but afterwards. at the meeting u The
committee on wutcrHorks. admitted
having expended 500 more than that
amount Ia date while tho books ~ the
auditor show nu expenditure. Including
January ~ ti.sN5hg. tho work having
been ordoted stopped on the 10Th "
January. the dute o. the receipt ~ the
engineers report, ana work was not to.
Humcd until Feb. T. Consequently be-
had expended ti,0iIGi more than stated
IN said report and fiiJGi more than
admitted by him 60 the committee: and
Whereas. lie has not reported TO tho
auditor his expenditures since March
30 this year while work has been con.
Htantly going on. and has refused to
give the special committee any figures
% such expenditures for the month OF
May. ana
Whereas. Contrary 10 his specific dc.
nlui 10 the committee. Il appears by
the written statements signed by re,
Hponaiblc parties living In nlg Cotton
wood. that the city engineer has sent
90. b..
ten contracts bargaining with them for
exchange Of water from contemplated
canal. Tor water OF Blr Cottonwood
creek which statement above referred
o. a. hereto attached and made "a part
hereof now, therefore. De- u
Resolved. That the city engineer be
and he la hereby ordered 10 produce 20
this Council nt itg next regular meet
ing an papers blank contracts and
drawings nppcrtaininF 10 tho special
water Investigation and survey and
that no further expense Dee Incurred iu
said matter until further order OF tho
COUNSEL. Ana be- Il further
Rcrolvyl That the engineer bring
before the Council nj said date come
plete statement showing IN detail the
expenditures mentioned iu the special
committees report Med June 9. 1899,
showing the names ~ parties employed,
the time put IN by each, and the
amount allowed them Tor each " said
accounts
THE MINORITY REPORT.
Robertson and Wallace presented a
minority report. na follows:
That portion OF the resolution refer
ring 10 Irregularities ln engineer de-
partment and stating that the buula
OF said department were IN n drplOrtblo
condition N shown 60 be mlHHtatu-
mcut OF facts. from the fact that the
maker Of the resolution made "a motion
before the committee 90 strike out that
clause. and further. the maker o. the
resolution had never seen books In the
engineers office.
In regard 10 the charge that the en-
ginccr had intended deceit lu reporting
on January 10Th the expenditures 90
date on the water supply, the report
after giving the fncts. said u IL absurd
TO suppose that thCrr was any effort Ga
hide any expenditure, ad these bi!lH
had been contracted and had 60 De
paid The only fault that can be found
with the engineer In this regard o. un
the ground that h0 does not write Dis
books up before his bills are paid.
In the matter of the fourth clause n
the resolution. relating o. the engineer
Specific denial 10 the committee ~
tho Big Cottonwood meeting, the report
says the statements made 100 this CLAUSE
are both misleading ana Incorrect The
statement that the engineer ala deny
was ns follows 800.
"pld you not call meetings no MN
Creek and Blg Cottonwood. az which
meetings u was stated 10 the people
that the city was going 90 build 81
600 600 canal for the purpose ~ bringing
water from Utah lake Co trade win
the people for the waters OF Cotton
wood or NH Creek
The statement OF the Big Cottonwood
F.-,.s.ra d. fhaV UfHUf NN md tho minor
lty finds the first clause states that
they attended "a meeting called by n
s. Geddcs. This meeting was not called
by Mr.. Geddes. but was called by one
William Boycc, WatermaAter OF th'
Tanner ditch, ,- IA.
proposed to trade water from utaf
lake Tor water In Blg Cottonwood Hhic
water from Utah lake 10 be brough
through "a new canal, which was u
cost the city 81 100000 ana m order Il
raise the lake hlrh enough Co give sum
Client fan, they would buy lana arouh'
Again. We would call attention 10 IN,
nbsurdlty Of the statement made a
man who would state TINT the city was
going To build u 100000 cnnnl, or who
would state that the city was going Il
for the purpose of backing the water
nm 10 get fan In the canal would bt
NIGHTLY demrntod. These statements
me denied In toto by Mr.. Geddcs.
Third clause states; Mr Gcddea mad,
an agreement wherein the city ngrcet
40 exchange water In said N.o0oOO'
canal with farmers Of Bis CottonWoo,
FOR their water In Blg COTTONWOOD
creek. Tho agreements presented Il
Inc people for their signatures was D
proposni 10 be submitted by the owner
~ nig Cottonwood waters Co the city
agreeing 10 deliver certain waters Il
me city In return for water received hl
them from the city provided that tn
div should Wish With certain limi
OF time to take advantage Of the pro
pusnl
i'm reading these proposals, we car
lind nothing that would Indicate INA
the city agreed TO do unything we dc
not ind that the engineer has IN ana
way exceeded the authority given hin
by This council when they passed re-
solution ON october g. 1855, lnstruetlnl
MIN 10 make certain Investigations.
The only point made by this reaolu
ZION upon which the engineer coul,
crltlclse " In claus of the resolution
which states that the engineer had no
reported his expenditures 20 Marcl
gtst. and had refused to give the speciu
committee any figures Of such eNpen
dltures for the month u May. M
nret part NJ this clause Is correct Thl
engineer states that ne delayed SEM
ing his reports Tor March 10 tho nudi
tor. but any member M the council de