Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-05-17
.EAD FOR YOURSELVES !

Tim citizens Of Salt Lake VIII now be
kblo 20 judge fully and fairly the terms
on which the Utah Light and Hallway
company are wlllng to convey TO tho
city tho properties desired by tho mu'
nlclpolity IN order To complete the
plan for bringing into the city tho wa
ters ~ the CottonWoods, 70 effect which
Tho now water bonds woro voted Tor by
The people. II they will read carefully
the provisions Of the franchise The full
text Of which N for the first time pre-
scented TO the public they win be able
10 understand the facts In the case for
themselves without having 10 dcpcn'
upon tho statements of lts opponents
when, IN almost every instance, nre
ma have been misrepresentation made
% deceive tho general public.
The reference Of the text Of tho fran-
ohls, To the city Attorney that COM
parsons may be made between II ana
tho existing fr0nchlacs, IN In no sense q
defeat Of the measure, me- claimed by
those who have 10 porsslcnlly fought
Il ana distorted Nv purporl ana intonh
II " all rIght for that funotlonory ~
carefully examine II TO mako sure that
the hubble interests Nro not Invaded,
nnd he should Mt the sOmo time sec
% II that the company II treated fairly
IN lts agreement with the city for mus
tual advantage.
This does not affect tho passage OF
tho ordnance which N necessary to
settle the question at Issue, The only
reason why some mombers resisted tho
motion 20 refer was, that they conHl'
dered II silll IN the hands Of the commit
tee, ana only presented II that II might
DO heard ana Investigated, 30 That II
might be intolllgcntly passed upon when
brought forward for vote upon ~
passage, However since tho form Of
the ordnance ~ submitted 10 the city
Attorney there IL no need to discuss tho
question as 20 the proprloty OF that
movement
II " the duty OF every member Of tho
Council 10 read the form Of the ordl-
nance as presented and weigh well lts
several provisions n thoro " any
thing wrong or 'graeplng" or IN tho
nature Of "a graft or N stoal,' to usc
the terms 20 frequently and unjuhtlS
applied In this case, they should be II
n position TO expose II, ana 80 amend
the ordinance that nothing OF the kln'
shall prevail. ON the other hand, N
they ind that its terms are just an'
for the interest OF the public Az wei
M Of tho company, they should sup
port II, notwithstanding anything TIA
has boon said to prejudice them or u
deter them from doing their duty
II should not be forgotten that tn
company which II seeking Cor n con
poldatlon ana slight extension o
~ present franchises, already hold
rights that have been legally boslowc
upon II, and which have been acquire
IN number OF instances by purchas
from those who held the legal right
mentioned therein, II the new fran
ohlao does not paas, the company WI
etin retain the rights which are yosto
IN II, ana win continue to operate upo
the old terms,
10 that IL thought to BIO OF moro nd
vantage 90 the olly than the Increase
bononta and valuable concessions nm
reductions of rates Tor lighting an
traffic provided for IN the new ord
nance, they should certainly vol
against any change, lut n they "
the great advantages that VIII accn
TO the city and 10 the general pun
from the new franchise then tho
should undoubtedly support II BY The
votes despite oll the mololiclloo
menncos ana mobocrocy mat nave bee
nrruyod against the measure, In ehol
the ely councillors should do right
the spirit Of justice, fairness ana Tea
iosenoss, IN which they viii certain
receive the support of The great boo
of our clti2ons