The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-11-12
TO STEAL HARTENsTElN's SEAT.


" DETAINED Councilman Hartenstein.
the towards who have accused
him Indirectly OF having betrayed
his constituents are now busy
trying TO steal his seat III
the council SO far no evidence has
been produced to indicate any change
In tho official vote giveu all the news
papers on election night, which vote
showed Hartenstein's election. Moth
ing but an official recount could change
that result, and unless Il recount is
made. the figures stand as published
by the american" party's organ the
morning after election, showing Hart
enstein's election,
Behind all the malicious attacks on
Mr.. Hartenstein has been a desire TO
hound him and injure him personally
in order 10 lay a foundation Tor a con-
test which could not ind support other
wise. To show how unfair these at
tacks are it is only necessary to pro-
duce the record on the vote for the
light aud railway franchise which has
been made the excuse for the defama-
tion of Hartenstein. II he was wrong.
then the mayor was wrong Judge Dey
was wrong, Simon Bamberger was
wrong, Samuel NcWhouse was mis-
led and a number Of the most conserv-
alive business men in town were at
fault. Still further. the suggestion that
Mr.. Hartenstem profited personally in
any way because Of his vote on the
water exchange franchise might as
fairly have been made of any of the
city officials who agreed to that eX-
change,
To show how the city administration
stood il is only necessary TO cite Judge
Dey's position. On the day the fran
chise came up for a vote, Councilman
HarJenstein asked Judge Dey for a
written opinion as 10 the terms Of the
new franchise compared with the
franchise which had been intro
duced by Councilman Black and voted
for by every councilman except Fern
strom. Here Is Judge Dey's opinion,
which was Mr. Hartenstein's guide:
salt Lake city, Utah, Aug. 8. 1905.
Hon. Z. A. Hartenstein, City Council
man. City,
Dear Sir-I have before me your ia
vor asking whether / consider the new
proposed ordinance granting an ex-
tension OF certain franchises. etc. TO.
the Utah Light & Railway company.
substantially as satisfactory as the or
dinance introduced by Councilman
Black on May 81, and passed June 3
by the votes Of all councilmen except
Councilman Fernstrom, and also ask
ing whether II would delay the con-
struction Of water extension by resort
ing 10 condemnation proceedings.
In reply I beg to say that / have not
time this morning to go into details,
and trust il will be sufficient for me
10 say that, as I view it. the principal
differences consist only Of an addition
al five years time and the elimination
Of the compulsory construction OF a
street car line 10 Lake Breeze. In
other respects / do not md the TWO
ordinances materially different In
fact, they are substantially identical as
TO essential provisions. All matters in
respect 10 regulating and compelling
proper service, equipment, operation.
sprinkling OF tracks and sanitary regu-
latious are not. in my opinion, neces-
sary 10 be inserted in the franchise.
Under what we commonly call the 'po-
lice power Of the state, the city CoUn-
eli has fun and complete power. with
out stipulations in the franchise. to
compel almost everything that may be
deemed necessary TO meet public re-
quirements. Both ordinances referred
10 have had my sanction as to form and
legal sufiiciency.
while I have no doubt of the power
of the city TO acquire the property you
refer TO by condemnation, and also to
obtain an order for immediate possess
sion OF the same. yet as have said to
Mayor Norris. I cannot advise. in tho
absence OF the questions involved hav-
ing been determined by the supreme
court Of this state. making any fur
Their expenditure Of money until such
questions are determined by the court
Of last resort. If contested. I estimate
IL will take not less than a years time
before dnaI decision is had, and OF
course that period Of delay if my adj
vice is acted upon. Yours respect
fully, CHAs. c. DEY,
City Attorney"
We 90 not believe anybody would
doubt the sincerity Of Judge Dey's
opinion. yet they might as Well accuse
him OF improper motives in his action
as 10 charge Mr.. Hartenstein with i'm
proper motives in his vote. The ordi-
nance for which Hartenstein voted
was. as Judge Dey says. practically the
same as the Black ordinance, which got
all the votes in the council save Fern
strom's. The only difference was one
of five years in the length OF the fran
chlse. and the removal Of the obliga-
ton to build the Lake. Breeze lipe.
The Herald supported the agreement
finally made on the ordinance because
It believed it was a good thing for the
city: it had assured Mr.. Hartenstein
that he could properly vote for the
ordinance. and in this opinion 1t had
the support OF many Of the best busi-
ness men IN the city The Herald still
thinks the ordinance was fair to ev-
erybody concerned. and it is sure that