Truth. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1901-1908, 1905-05-27

the street railway operation.
The Newhouse franchise oueht to
contain forfeiture clause. So should
the Power Co. franchise and all other
franchises. Mr.. Newhouse objects TO
IL, saying he does not want to be left
TO the caprice of city council" Well.
the municipality does not want TO he
lett to the caprice of a soulless cor
poration"-all private corporations
are soulless-so let us have the forfeit
ure clause as the municipality has the
last call. But the record shows that
no caprice" in a city council or other
body ever forfeits a franchise. This
is done only on the most severe nro-
vocation. The city council member
snip changes frequently, and no coun
Gil mas actual power to forfeit a fran.
chlse unless substantial cause ex-
lsts. The private corporation of ne
cesslty gets the benefit of the doubt.
Tor an unjust forfeiture, no matter
what the clause in the franchise, would
De confiscation of property which the
law ana the courts will not tolerate,
forfeiture clause is a public protec-
ton. Logan City would not be in its
present dilemma if the city council
had inserted forfeiture clauses in the
electric light franchise given there.
No person who wants a square deal
franchise will object to a reasonable
forfeiture clause. The Newhouse
franchise should have one, though it
should be on a reasonable basis, as
with the u. l.. & p. company.
Mr. Newhouse wants to pay / per
cent on his company's gross earnings.
Not by long ways. That would be all
right for the private corporation. but
under the circumstances would be a
monstrous swindle of the public. This
is easily shown. Mr.. Newhouse wants
to operate in the commercial district.
The entire gross receipts from the
commercial district of Salt Lake arc
less than 100000 per year. and
will be for long time. Suppose Mr..
Newhouse got the entire business dis.
trict, he would pay to the city less
than $4,000 per year For its light
franchise now, the Utah Light and
Railway company is giving the city
in light and power more than $4,000 a |
year. That would be giving to Mr. |
Newhouse clear advantage, against |
the city, of over $1,000 a year. But |
more, the present light company also |
furnishes the county, for state and |
county offices, more than $4,000 in light
per year. AS Salt Lake City pays
fve-siXths of the county taxes, the
public gets this, too. which would make
a balance in Mr.. Newhouse's favor
On the gross receipt proposition, of
ever $4,000 per year.
A little farther on this: Suppose
hat, by reason of this $4,000 handi
zap, the Utah Light and Railway com.
)any should be forced out of business
n this city. Then Mr.. Newhouse's
company would have all of the bust
less. He would pay to the city less
hon $4,000 a year. At 10 cents per
;ilowatt hour, which he would then
harge according to his franchise, for
is present light and power, which
zones free, the city would. have to
ay over $4,000 and the county for
is free lights $1,000. making over
$4,000 to pay him for light and power
ow obtained free from the existing
franchise-a dead loss to
he public of over $4,000 per year. No
ir, no / per cent on gross earnings.
yOt bit of 1t.
Mr.. Newhouse. You can figure
'ell, and we tax payers can figure a
tile, too.
Another lighting franchise could be
iven, and Liberty park would be light Z
d, as the city and county building and
rounds now. Then the city could get
efficient additional free lighting and