The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-02-14
Where Trouble Begins.

Where Trouble Begins.
The description of the northern boun-
cary of the alleged city is correct, as
Is also that portion bounded by the Big
cottonwood creek. When the boundary
starts south from the creek the trouble
begins After describing the creek as
= portion of the boundary, the descrip-
ton says:
Thence southerly and southeasterly
along the west bank of said creek to
where the same intersects the quarter
section line eighty rods west Of the sec
lion line between sections and g."
ne map shows that the boundary
does not follow south eighty rods west
of the quarter-section line, but follows
the eighth section line. making differ
ence of the width of a quarter section.
If that is the true boundary line. the
creek is cut off entirely as a portion of
the boundary line.
That is one of the several fatal err
rors between the map and description,
which are supposed TO tally exactly.
With the east boundary Of the city
that far off the southern boundary is
cut off just that much in width.
After describing where the eastern
boundary line meets the one on the
south, the description says the latter
line follows highway No. 70 in west
erly direction to another certain point.
In fact, the said highway runs south
west for a considerable distance, and
then runs northwest until it meets the
State road. The latter thOrOughfare
appears by that name on the map, but
is called a highway in the description.
There is no State road in either of the
descriptions on file.
Two Serious Defects.
At this point two errors are found
which are most serious. When State
street is met, the city line proceeds
north for a distance of ten feet, more
or less" In reality the distance is LOO
feet. such a distance not being con-
templated in the survey. for it would
have been specific as regards such a
great distance. The exact distance is
not shown in the two surveys made of
the boundary line as the two do not
correspond. Then continues the de-
scription:
Thence north on highway No. s. ten
feet. more or less, to the quarter
ton line forming the south boundary
line of school district No. %: thence
west on said south boundary line to the
southeast corner of the northwest quar-
ter of the northwest quarter of sec
tion 13.
An inspection of the map will show
that the south boundary OF school dis
trict No. % and the southern boundary
OF the city along the quarter-sectiOn
line are not, and cannot possibly be, the
same. They are 4 quarter of a sec
tion-a quarter of a mile-apart.
The description shows that the south
ern boundary of the city runs west
along the southern quarter-sectiOn line
mentioned above while the map shows
the southern boundary of the city to
be along the southern boundary of the
school district. Both cannot be correct,
as the two lines are not the same.
Are Entirely Different.
Then the description says the line
runs west to a certain point and north
TO the place of beginning. Succinctly
speaking. the boundary of the city, ac-
cOrding to the map and according to
the description, are entirely different,
They are not the same In general
way they include the sa me territory,
but on the east and south sides there
are strips of land a, quarter of a mile
wide which are both in and out of the
city limits. AS they cannot be both,
the law is not complied with when it
says the description of the boundary
must be accompanied by an accurate
map
If the map is correct. the description
is wrong; if the description is right.
the map is wrong; and in either in
stance the law has not been complied
with.
The investigation instituted by Mayor
discovery that the original map of the
alleged city of Murray is not on file
The citizens of the smelter city claim
they gave it to County Clerk James
for record; he AYERS no such map ever
was given him for that or any other
purpose. The only map he has on
record is one clipped from a newspaper.
That is not the one the citizens of
Murray and the county clerk have ref
erence to in their dispute.
Maps Did Not Agree.
When it became known that the
original map was lost, Jesse w. Fox,
who was then county surveyor, was
instructed to make another. He was
compelled to make new survey. When
he recorded his map with Thomas Ais
ton. who was then county recorder, he
made the statement to Clerk Moore it
is said. that the original map and the
one he was about to file did not agree
He went on to state that the south
err boundary. east of South State
street. which is highway No. 8, in one
map ran along the highway, while in
the other it ran through private prop
erty. The map now on file with Re
corder Meeks was filed Dec. 81, at 5
o'clock, by Mr.. Fox. 1t bears his at
testment that it is correct
Before Recorder Aston went out of
Office ne mentioned to a certain county
official that the map was Incorrect
When Recorder Meeks took charge of
the Office he found the map lying on
one of the desks. 1t apparently had
never been filed away.
One day shortly after that County
Surveyor Swensen walked into the Of
flee and. picking up the map. started
10 walk out with il. When stopped by
Deputy Recorder John May he said he
wanted to take IL to his Office and cor
rect it, Mr.. May refused to permit
him to do so. and reported the mat
ter to Recorder Meeks.
Wanted to Correct Map.
The county commissioners took the
matter up about that time. and they
insisted that the map should be al
tered. County Clerk James was in
structed to get the map and make the
alterations. Recorder Meeks refused to
let him have IT, When County Attor-
ney Westervelt's attention was called
TO the matter he said neither the coun-
" commissioners nor the county sur
veyor nor any one else had a right
TO change the map once it had been
recorded and that Recorder Meeks did
right in refusing to let il go out of
his hands for that purpose.
County Attorney Westervelt is now
preparing a written opinion UNFOLDING
the stand taken By Recorder Meeks as
against the county commissioners and
the county surveyor.