Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-09-16
HAVE COME TO THEIR SENSES.


The withdrawal OF the suit against
the city to enjoin II from entering into
n contract with three OF the canal COM
Tanies for the construction and opera
ton of the pumping plant, came as
surprise to the city authorities and &c
the public. While It Is gratifying to
know that the parties to the suit found
that they had no legal basis for their
nct,on, and therefore, did not so TO
court to have their gauzy theory torn
to pieces, 1t would have been more sat
isfactory TO have a decision OF the
court on the question involved in the
attempted litigation. That question
ought to be settled for good. that other
obstructionists may not be open TO tie
bad advice OF poorly-informed at
torney, and take similar steps to the
INJURY Of the public interests.
AS pointed out In the Deseret News,
The city attorney took an absurd posi-
tion. when he cited n provision Of the
State Constitution as an excuse fer
h'ndering a project In furtherance OF
the city's water rights. We pointed out
at the time the non-appllcation of that
clause Of the Constitution TO the matter
In dispute. Any tyro In the law might
see at a glance, by reading that pro-
vision. that 1t has nothing whatever to
do with the right Of the city TO protect
It's own interests and continue its as
ISOLATION with other corporations, for
mutual advantage and common pur-
pose. 1t is a matter so plain that even
the city attorney ought NOT to have
erred therein.
But supposlng that clause in the Con-
stitution had all the effect which he
claimed for II, and supposing that the
case which he cited In support Of his
view was germane TO II (Which by the
by II certainly was noD, the fact re-
manned that the Constitutional provi-
sion could not be made retroactive, and
destructive of the cltys partnership
with the canal companies for the bring
ing out OF water from Utah Lake and
Improving the facilities for it's use.
For many years Salt Lake city had
been Joined with those companies for
this common purpose. and while Its
rights TO the use OF the water In its
own canals was individual, the city was
- Joint owner with those companies in
the necessary works TO conduct the
water from the lake to the point Of d.
vision. The notion that the constitu-
tional provision alluded TO abrogated
those rights, destroyed that joint own
'ership, put an end to that partnership
land thus swept away the right of the
|city TO the water thus obtained. is 80
|preposterous that 1t makes one impa-
|tient to consider 1t gravely.
II the case had gone to trial, the at
|sorneys retained 10 defend the suit
|Afessrs. Richard and Varian, would
|doubtless have presented the whole
|matter, including the history of the
|city's appropriations conformity with
|the canal companies during period
|of many years, and that long before the
1State Constitution was framed, and 1t
would have been seen that the plain
hifYs had not legal point to stand
hpon, and that they had as little foun-
|dation for their position in common
sense.
All that they have accomplished In
&his contention Is to put the city to
needless trouble and expense, and to
hinder the erection OF the pumping
blant, which time and experience has
demonstrated would have rendered un-
hecessary the suit brought by the farm
hrs against the city, saved a vast
kmount In the value Of crops that have
>erished and prevented the ill-feeline
knd numerous troubles and difficulties
hat have arisen in consequence OF
hose obstructive methods.
/ We need not pursue this subject fur
her ut present. II is a matter OF
egret that reputable citizens were In
uced by faulty interpretations of law
nd of the Constitution, to engage NOM
hally In the action that has been dis
hised from the court on motion OF their
ttorney. 1t is with pleasure, how
YER that we note the fact that the
fror has been seen.and that the parties
ave withdrawn. and that now, al
hough II Is too late to obtain the bene-
rs that would have arisen. this sea-
bn. from the unobstructed union of
be city with the canal companies 10
kcure sufficient flow Of water, the
municipality can 20 ahead, and enter
TO necessary contracts for the pre-
rvatlen OF its water rights as to Utah
BIKE and its outlet, and for increased
cilities and further appropriations,
time and circumstances may render
kcessary Let us be thankful that
threatened litigation. even at this
ke date. Is now al an end,