The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-05-19
DEFENSE OF THE COUNCIL,

To the Editor Of The Herald:
Dear Sir:-Judging from your editorial
in this mornings issue with regard to the
Valley Road franchise, The Herald seems
to be misinformed.
In the first place there were not ten,
but twelve cOuncilmen who voted in ia
VOr of the franchise, and If all had been
present there would have been still one
more vote Then again, you say there
was something mysterious and ineXplIc-
able about the same. That statement is
false. There was fun explanation given
as TO why the franchise was granted.
Four hours were consumed in elaboration
when 1t was first passed. You charge
that every Democrat who voted for the
franchise violated party pledge. / defy
you to prove it
This franchise imposes a tax of So an
nuaily on every car running on the line,
and as only One-fouTth of the time viii be
occupied in Salt Lake City, tax four
times larger than the Salt Lake City rail-
roao company pays will be paid by the
Valley Road This is not a valuable fran
ChiSe. and in proof of that / Will cite that
Mr. D. c. Dunbar stated before the COM
mittee that he feared 1t would not be
financial success and as such might be
turned into something else, and to pre-
vent that such restrictions were inserted
as 10 make that impossible. Furthermore
the Rapid Transit and Salt Lake street
car companies have been begged and Of
fered bonus to extend their tracks north
to the Beck's Hot Springs, but have re-
fused.
Now the Valley Road company comes
and offers to build a street car line, and
we impose upon them a four times great
er taxation than any other line in the
city. We impose upon them more restric-
tons than any other franchise ever grant
ed in Utah, and on top OF that YOU charge
us with breaking our Democratic pledges
! brand such statements as false, and con-
trary to facts
The fnsinuation that we did not give
those who protested against the Valley
Road sufficient opportunity to present
their side of the case is also incorrect
Second South to Seventh North streets
protested against a railroad, but none
protested against a street car line Mr..
Joseph Bull, jr., d. c. Dunbar and others
stated that a suburban street car line
would be beneficial to Salt Lake City and
that they had no objection 10 il. Not even
the man who had ms brain mixed with
rotten eggs objected TO street car, Dut
their fear was that il might be turned
into a railroad. and for this reason we in
serted restrictions making such change
impossible, and 1 repeat that there are
more restrictions in this franchise than
I'm any other ever granted, and / do not
see how any charge can be made that We
betrayed our constituents. One-tmrd or
the property owners from Second South
TO Seventh North petitioned us to grant
the franchise, and the property owners
from Seventh North to the city limits
begged and urged US to grant the fran
crease Of a hundred per cent to the value
of their property, and to my certain
knowledge there are several hundred
property owners who intend to erect
homes as soon as street car accommOda-
tions can be had. and as such 1t means a
considerable increase of taxation TO Salt
Lake City. And ] claim that that alone
would justify us in granting the fran
We are criticized for cutting the Warm
Springs property in two. That IS also IN
, correct. This is not going to be done.
/ The contemplated road Will run through
the eastern side of the Warm Springs
property leaving on the west side more
than ten acres of land in one piece, and
whatever damage is done Is provided to
be fully paid for. / claim that Salt Lake
CITY has no more right to block or hinder
a beneficial enterprise, simply because
they happen to own a piece of ground
in that vicinity, than any other private
citizen.
You say we could have granted it to
run on some other streets which are al
ready damaged by railway tracks For
the first, the property owners north OF
Seventh North street would not have beer
benefited by that kind of a street car ser
vice. Secondly, is that Democratic to i'm
pose upon those who are already imposed
UPON so az those no. To- rich f bankers
and we'll born who own the choice
property on First West street?
I have not learned that kind of Democracy
and the majority OF the CITY couhcl mas
I NOT either. We granted it TO run on q
( street where there were fewer street cars
and if that can be construed to look .sus-
picious and almost scandalous l fail tc
J see II. / am perfectly willing to give al
account of my action TO my constituents
( concerning the grant of this franchise OF
/ any other action. I admit that / could
not suit all. but [ do claim that 80 pei
/ cent effected by this franchise are benefit
/ ed bv the same Yours truly,
F S FERNSTROM.