Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-04-25
SALT LAKE CITY. APRIL %, 1907
EVEN A cHILDMAy UNDERSTAND

EVEN A CHILD MAY UNDERSTAND
4 We publish today the full text OF the
agreement, by which three of the cana
companies in this county are to De per
mItted to join with Salt Lake C''y' ~
completing and developing water fisn's
which are necessary TO the welfare anu
benefit of all the parties mentioned ~
w,l no seen by the careful reader Oh
The document that the notion set ior'h
nv the city Attorney and by morn
Ing contemporary, that the agreement
was framed simply to aid the cana
companies and the people In THIS couh-
~ depending on the lake water Tor the
culture of their fields, and that TINS
was proposed under the popular suise
OF philanthropy" Is utterly untrue ahu
n3nsenslcal As the News has dem
onstrated repeatedly, the agreement Is
dssIgned for the benefit Of Salt Lake
CITY and the fact that II Is also In the
interest Of the canal companies does
not in any way detract from the good
that will result to this municipality
The Mayor has been all along OPP
posed to the arrangement entered into
between the City Council and the canal
companies, and his latest objections
were presented in a veto which was
overruled by the council They were
based upon an opinion furnished by the
city attorney who declared that the
agreement proposed was clearly Illegal.
The attorney founded his Views ON
provision OF the State Constitution,
which the Deseret News showed has no
bearing upon the subject either direct
~ or indirectly.
The Salt Lake Tribune sides with the
Mayor and the attorney, but does not
offer any argument, legal precedent or
provision of law or the Constitution to
support is position, but only such lucid
and convincing remarks as the follow
ing. which we take from its editorial
columns today:
Mayor Thompson announces that
he will not sign the proposed contract
with the three canal companies for the
pumping of water from Utah lake. In
this he IS clearly within his rights: in
fact, he could not take any other posi-
ton and be justified His legal adj
wiser, the City Attorney. declares that
the action proposed by the contract is
clearly Illegal That opinion OF the
city Attorney Is OF course the guide
fol ali branches Of the city govern
ment. To derlde It Is indecent. TO go
counter 20 Il is perilous II ought to be
binding also on the city Council. but
unfortunately that body does not app
pear to hold itself TO be subject to legal
restrictions President Cannon's lack
OF respect for the official opinion doesn't
matter; he Is not learned in the law.
and those who have been writing long
objections 10 that opinion In an even
Ing contemporary are equally UNI
trained In Jurisprudence. We presume
that neither Mr., Cannon nor the editor
OF the News" would consider his opn-
ioli bIl II INV uu'nAloi WhINfl any DUUA y
while 90 pay for Yet the city has
elected an attorney, qualified TO prac-
tice whose legal knowledge has for
years been paid for by his clients. and
whom the city now pays a goodly sum
10 attend to precisely such matters as
giving this opinion No one can read
this opinion, either without being
struck with the strength OF H. and it's
sound application OF constitutional
principles. We believe that the courts
will sustain IL; that he has properly de-
clared the law and that there Is no
escape from his conclusions
According to the reasoning Of our
contemporary, the Mayor and the city
Council are bound 10 accept the opinion
OF the city Attorney on matters OF the
greatest Importance, whether It is con-
sonant with common sense and in har-
mony with constitutional and statutory
provisions, or not The same legal au-
thorlty has advanced ideas. officially.
which have been proved TO be contrary
TO well-known and established prin-
ciples of law and parliamentary rule.
Yet the Tribune says ito derde It is in
decent TO go counter to Il Is perllous."
That paper Is shocked because the city
Council does not appear to hold itself
to be subject" to such legal restric-
tlons."
Under what law or regulation Is the
City Council bound TO accept and be
governed by an opinion which. Ola its
face, is incorrect and absurd? Accord
ing to our contemporary. neither the
Mayor nor the city Council has any
right to dissent from the Views OF an
attorney who has succeeded in obtaining
an official position no matter what they
may be. This would be establishing
a one-man-nower with a vengeance.
VIII our critic point OUT from any
section Of the laws Of Utah pro-
vision comforting such power upon
the City Attorney. or any such
restriction or requirement on the city
Council? The city Attorney is required
TO give legal advice to the council. but
that body Is not Obliged to accept II.
particularly when II is evidently both
unwise and contrary to reason and TO
law The duties Of that funcuonary
are defined BY the City Council. and he
is not the master or dictator OF that
body.
In another part Of this paper VIII be
found an accoun, OF an interview be-