Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-04-25

on the part of the city consists Of an
extension and enlargement of the pres
ent waterworks system which Is now
owned and controlled by The munich
palIty II would seem that the ISSUE
0hcc Of the bonds, pending the con-
struCtIOn Of such extension ana en-
largement, would not, by any far CON
struCtlon render them subject 70 the
constitutional objection that the works
are not owned and controlled BY the
city, because 81 would be- simply bet
tCrment and enlargement OF the system
which the city now owns and controls,
II the objection rs valid, The city could
not issue bonds Tor the purpose OF rais-
Ing money 10 extend It's present water
| mains I'm the city because the new
mains, not being In existence at the
time the bonds were issued, could not
then be owned by the city, and yet az
fast AS constructed, they would become
the prouerty Of the city and a part ot
the w9tcrworks system just az the COM
tcmpllteI works would become "a part
OF the system, and, indeed the eXten-
sion ana enhancement of the mains IS
one OF the Items Of Improvement which
Is contemplated, II being the purpose
10 use at least 100000 OF the money for
that purpose.
There is no intention on the part
OF the city OF abaud)alng the plan OF
bringing water from Big Cottonwood
creek That plan must be carried out
because there is no other available
source OF supply When | said IN my
letter that, III the city cannot obtain
the water in accordance with the pres
Ont plan, some other method 10 accom-
plish the same purpose viii have 20
be- pursued ] did not mean, as you
seem to infer that the city might con-
clude 10 abandon the plan Of getting
water from Big Cottonwood creek, but
only that It might change It's plan so
far ma the location OF the proposed con-
duit and pipe line is concerned.
The question submitted to the people
was as 10 increasing the water supply
OF the city by laying pipes and estab-
fishing a water system 10 conduct
water from Big Cottonwood creek and
MIL creek end their tributaries, to salt
Lake city" but the question as to the
character and location OF the pipes
through which the water Is TO be con-
Quoted Is still omen for determination
and win be decided In accordance with
the best interests Of the city under
existing conditions,
] do not see any necessity for submit
ting the matter 10 the court and the de-
lay which would result from 80 doing
Would be "a great inconvenience and in
Jury to the city as Il desires TO proceed
with the work os RAPIDLY as possible,
so that the water may be brought into
/ the city before next winter. In the case
/ OF state VS. city COuncll, % Utah, 10,
/ our supreme court decided that bonds
! could be- legally issued By the city for
/ the purpose Of increasing the water
/ suprIy and inproving the Watprworks
| of the city" The proposed issue Is for
| exactly the same purpose and the
| ownership and control Of the works IS
! precisely the same as it was when
! that case was before the court
I'm state VS. Ouayle. 2G Utah. 20. val
| id,ty of bond issue of Logan city for
/ building and establishing of an electric
plant 10 be owned by said municipal
| inv and for supplvinp said Logan city
| with artificial light was sustained. II
is true the question you raise was not
| passed ,lpon. hut the bonds were issued
/ and sold Nm advance 10 provide the
oney Ia construct the works. etc.
The constitutional restriction upou
the issue for bonds TO cases only where
| tine works FOR SUMMING such water
ghau he owned and controlled
by the nuuicipalityU was apparently
designed 10 enable cities 10 supply
themselves with water. light and sew
ers and in encourage uunicipaI owner
] chin, of tho gnnBlE md lipbt In -