The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-08-19
NOSE HYsrgRIA.

Even those who have attempted to
Keep themselves Informed regarding
tnc various phases of the hysteria with
y hich the Adullamite organ is hope
lessiy suffering were unprepared for
the outbreak on the editorial page of
that paper yesterday morning. 1t is
possible TO view with amused tolera-
ton, the liberation one would give to
the peevishness Of a disappointed child.
many OF the verbal antics of the Trib-
une. But there comes a time when
patience can no longer be regarded as
virtue. a time when the peevish child
must be spanked and put to bed.
Yesterday the paper virtually ad-
vised its readers to disregard the
sDrinkling regulations utterly and en-
tirely. 1t told them, in effect, that the
mayor had no right TO issue procia-
nation restricting the use Of water on
lawns to certain days I'm the week and
to certain hours q day. II assured those
WHO wish 10 disregard the proclama-
ton and the regula tons that the city
would not dare to proceed against
them And this Is the argument on
which the Tribune bases it's theory that
the law may be violated without fear
of punishment. We quote:
The water rights attach here to the
land, and have never been separated
from it; the city has merely undertaken
10 serve the land with the water, at a
cost which is represented by the water
tax. II has never acquired these rights
Tor itself; it cannot sell the water 90
the people. and especially 10 those who
o&n II by prior appropriation and con-
1achiug 10 the lots t''' here stu i attach to
them. and are owned by the owners of
the land. and not by the city. The own
els Of those rights consent that the city,
shall deliver the water through mains and
pipes, and they consent to pay FOR THIS
service. but they don't consent to sur
render their right to nor ownership of
the USE Of the water"
The absurdity of this statement-we
cannot call it arguments so apparent
that IL seems hardly worth while TO
call attention to it. 1t is only neces-
sary TO say that probably ninety per
cent OF the property owners in Salt
Lake who use city water never had
any idea OF water right in connection
with their property Our cOntempO-
Iary- surely viii not contend, if the
city should cut off the water from any
residence for non-paymen, of rates,
that the property owner could compel
the municipality to turn it or again.
The city having bought the water
and having conducted it through mains
under the various streets TO the pri-
v9te residences and business blocks.
owns it absolutely and can make any
such regulations governing it's use as
It sees fit. We co not pretend to so
Jauch legal knowledge as our contem-
porary claims but We would dislike
very much TO agree TO pay the fines OF
those who deliberately violate the
terms Of the mayors proclamation or
the sprinkling regulations laid down
b. the council. And We have seen no
symptoms OF such an offer on the part
or our contemporary, either.
The only possible answer to the
charge. in the editorial from which We
have quoted. that the mayor ordered
the water from the high line turned
GA for his private benefit is that il is
rot true and that the Tribune knew It
vac not true when the charges were
made.