Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-09-20
THE Big PUMPING PLANT PROJECT.

, was evident that the mayor was still
| determined to operate against the
measure by delay as well as the exer-
! else OF his veto power And so II
| proved, for his veto was submitted 20
the council on the evening Of the nh
] OF April. and on the evening OF the lin,
| that being as early as the city council
could give the matter their attention,
! they passed the resolution over his ye-
! 10 by a vote Of 10 to 3.
On the 22nd Of Apri the attorneys Of
three canal companies drew up a con-
| tract 10 be signed In behalf OF the city
and the several canal companies, which,
on being submitted to the city attor-
ney, was Acknowledged by him 10 be
| according 10 the resolution of the city
council. The three canal companies sD-
proved OF this contract, and authorized
its ratification. They also each appro-
prlated the sum Of SlSI5 TO pay into the
city treasury, being their three fourths
Of the total sum agreed upon.
The same evening the city council
met, and the contract, copy OF which
was already In the hands of the city at
torney, was submitted for It's approval:
but the council decided to await the ae-
ton of the mayor In the matter OF sign
ing II.
After waiting for two days for the
mayor to take action, the chairman Of
the board OF presidents grew impatient
at the delay, and called upon the mayor
to urge It's ratification by him. Thc
mayor said, Il refuse 10 sign or approve
of the agreement for the reason set
forth In my message TO the city council
when | vetoed the resolution, being
governed by the advice OF the city at.
torney.' The city attorney happening
In during this interview, was reasoned
with IN regard TO the legal points in
VOWED, and the fact pointed out TO him
that the city would he no more q part
ner VITA the canal companies II COM
blned with them in The humping plant
than II had been IN The past IN the Joint
ownership and control Of the impOund-
ing dam-the partnership feature hay-
ing been the special objection urged by
the attorney to the proposition. Both
officials We're again reminded Of the
seriousness Of the situation. and Of the
prospect Of the half million-dollar loss
OF crops suffered I'm this county last
year being repeated and possibly eN-
oeeded during the present season. They
were reminded that would take fully
three months 60 make and install the
pumps, and that two months had al
ready been FILTERED away IA trying
10 effect an agreement with the city.
They were told that three canal com.
nanles were impatient IN commence
the work, and II they could be assured
that the CITY would 1t n.u.. .rsA
they would do so without DELAY They
were shown, too, that or ratification OF
the contract the canal companies could
proceed with the work, even though the
city might he enjoined as It was az
serted It probably would he. The rea-
sonlng and appeals however were all
without effect, as the mayor still de-
clared that he would not sign the con-
tract.
The mayors refusal to sign the con.
tract was at the last day forwarded 20
the city council, and then followed d.
lntory measures which prevented It's
final ratification until the 2lst OF MAY,
whom the president Of the city council.
o. the mayors protest, was author
Nv 10 sign Il.
The checks Of the canal COMPANIES
{ the total sum Of $685., which had
t"1 awaiting the ratification of the
DH'ract, were Immediately paid into
she city treasury
In all the proceedings Of the board
OF presidents relating to the pumping
scheme the city engineer, who had pre-
ylously been the city's representative
In that organization, had declined to
take part, on the plea that he had not
been instructed so to do One of the
objections urged by the mayor and city
attorney to the contract was that Il did
not provide for the work being done
under the direction OF the board of
public works. With a view to overcom-
ing this objection and producing har-
mony, resolution was introduced into !