Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-01-28
EMINENT DOMAIN
BILLS BOTH PASS.
Interesting Debate Precipitated
In Senate BY important Water
Measures
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST.
4 Problem That Salt Lake and Many
Other Utah Cities VIII Have 10
Solve Some Day.

Whether or not Salt Lakes long fight
for a better water supply Is 20 result
IN success now depends ON what the
house OF representatives win DO to the
eminent domain bills Of Senator Law
renee that yesterday afternoon passed
through the senate and were orderd
up TO the lower house for consideration.
The debate on the bin was extensive,
and kept the senate IN session for two
hours over It's longest previous meet
Ing. The final vote stood ii to G, the six
voting may having announced their
intention 80 to vote when the measure
was first read, and refusing to be con-
ycrted by the long arguments with
which friends Of the bin persuaded
them IL finally won, perhaps, because
Weber county will soon face the same
problem that salt Lake does now, and
VIII have need for the law. II was
the combination OF Salt Lake ana We
Der that won together with a few re-
cruits from the south, who stated that
IN casting an aye" vote, they stood
ON the ground OF fayoring larger civic
interest over a personal profit The
six senators voting nay were Bar
Der, CallIster Clegg, Gardner john
son and Walton.
The two bills, Nos. 20 and q, extend
the right Of eminent domain which at
present includes realty only to include
water end personal property. The sec
ond bin defines the kinds Of property
and the purposes for which 1t may be
condemned.
Both bills are frankly for n purpose
that Is local In Its application What
II Is was made evident when senator
Bamberger said that a man who Of
fered his farm for $4,000 before he
knew the city needed It, Immediately
Jumped the price TO $4,000 or $4,000 on
finding out who wanted II. The prob
lem, It was pointed out in the senate,
is one which many Of the cities and
towns IN Utah will have 10 meet some
time in the near future when It's growth
exceeds the capacity Of It's water sup
ply and for that reason serious op-
position TO II is not considered far
sight ed or compatible with good public
policy by many Legislators,
WATER ALONE EXEMPTED.
How sacred shall water be to it's
owner? Under the right Of eminent
domain In Utah the railroad can lay It's
track through the house a man was
born IN, run over the grave Of his loved
ones, and pass through the church IN
which he worships, Yet it cannot
touch the water on which he has squat
ter's rights, for which reason a lone
rancher can sit IN state in the mouth
OF a canyon and laugh at a hundred
thousand people IN the city below, no
matter how great their need for wa
Tor fI mn
10 the skies and he cannot be compelled
to accept figure,
UTAH LAW EXCEPTIONAL.
In other states It is not so. Senator
Lawrence pointed out I'm defending his
measures that I'm nearly every state wa
ter is included I'm the rights eminent
domain, and has frequently been taken
from the individual 10 serve the pur-
pose OF the many, at fair compensa-
ton,
An idea advanced by Senator Larson
Of Manti was novel and was brought up
I'm opposition 10 the contention by Sem
ators Clegg Gardner and Walton, that
the new measure extended eminent do
main farther than was proper He
showed that on the same principle the
nation exercised the right OF eminent
domain by attaching the crops or the
farm Of an individual, Of attaching his
water supply, or even demanding his
life itself IN time Of peril
WALTON OPENED DEBATE.
The debate was opened by Senator
Walton, who made a motion TO amend
the bills by striking out the paragraph
referring TO water. In support OF his
motion he claimed this bill was taking
the right of eminent domain into an
entirey new field holding the position
that Il invaded personal rights lie
questioned whether the courts would
sustain the law II passed, and classed
Il as q dangerous measure, I'm that It
gave one body Of citizens a right to
take q commodity from another body
OF citizens and use II for the same pur.
pose but FOR their exclusive benefit
Concluding ne said he favored the
farmer who could not fight IN the
courts the powerful city corporations
which would seek to destroy his water
rights.
GAVE VALUE RECEIVED.
~.