Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-06-16

tllhulun NAtlrln w ulnNl Nulu'i WV
money N lo be- expended for the bot'
torment Of me wolerworks, which are
nlrondy owned and controlled, I'm the
fnllcsl pollsc hy tho city ~ course,
II cannot be said that the city owns
tho conduit which w not Yet construct
ed, no, that II owns the wnlerrlghts
which are vet ~ bo acquired, but, when
constructed and acquired, they VIII be-
como part " The present works FOR
pupplylnR water 20 the city, which are
now owned and controlled ny n,
II M u fundamental rule lhat, IN
ccnftrnlng constitutional or statutory
provision the court VIII give II auch
ian Interpretation nv VIII make II most
objective IN accomplishing the purpose
of liH enactment THIS cAn only ho
done M tho case nt bar 10y adopting the
reasonable construction which " COM
tended fol by the defcndaOlg, n the
restrictive construction asked for X
given t0 this constitutional provision,
II viii become 80 ineffective that no
substantial henollt can ever bo derived
from H. Under such u construction, no
ety. being without a NAtrlWOrkH kyHs
tom, could possibly borrow the money
with which ~ purohape or construct
such system, ana no municipality
owning ana controlling u Walorworka
System, could ever borrow money with
which Ia increase lta water supply or
extend ANA enlarge ma Watcrworkf
such n construction would defeat the
very purpose nnd object of this pro-
vision Of the Constitution,
IN tho ease Of piaio va city council
20 ttuh n, this court mys
constitutions are not 10 he interpret.
I'd alono by lholl words nbslrctly con-.
slderol, but by their words read IN the
light ~ the conditions and necessities
IN which ,ho provisions originated ana
In vlrW of the purposes sought 10 ho
attained and secured
We invoke thlg rule ana ask the court
10 alply II IN this case I'm the light
Of The conditions aud necessities IN
which the provision " the Constitution
originated ana In View NJ the purposes
sought 10 bo attained ANA secured by
IT, We do not see how any other COM
Htuction than the one for which we
contend can possibly be- adopted
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECT,
The real purpofc and object ~ this
constitutional provision was 10 en-
courage the municipal ownership Of
works for supplying cities Win wntcr
ARTIFICIAL lights ana sewers, by afford
ing the necessary means through which
n cry could purchase, construct ana en-
tend such works The power of the city
Ia borrow money for these purposes
was limited 10 cnsos where Tho m,nlcl.
patty itself would own and control the
worka aud such nm indebtedness could
not be Incurred for supplying any city
or town With water artificial llghe or
sewers, when the works fol supplying
the Same would be owned or controlled
by any other person than the munlcl.
polilN II was FOR tho purpose NJ lnsur'
ing the ultimate ownership aud control
oi these works In the municipality, m
stead NJ q private person, that this pro.
vision was m1do, without regard 10
whether or not the city actually held
tile 10 the property at the time the
bonds were issued
IN this connection We desire ia call
tho courts attention TO the case Of state
w city council % Utah 49, I'm which This
court hold that salt Lake Guy might
issue bonds amounting 10 i2h000O TOR
the purpose Of increasing ils water sup,
ply ana improving the WAlcrWorks 81
tho city, Tho proaeni proposed bond
Issue N for exactly The same purpose,
ana the ownership ana control NJ the
oily'e N0t0rworks II precisely the same
now IN II was when the court decided
that case,
We also refer 10 the case Of state Va
Quayle, 20 Utah 20, wherein this court
declared valid a bond Issue Of Logan
CITY, FOR building ana establishing AN
electric plant 90 De owned by said mus
nlclpolty and fol'supplylng said Logan
Clty with ARTIFICIAL light" n II true
this question was not directly raised or
passed upon IN those cases bu, the
bonds were issued ana sold, In advance,
TO provide money for acquiring the wa
ter and constructing the works
NOT DEPENDENT
\ careful examination Of the address
VIII show that the carrying out Of Inc
plan proposed IL not dependent upon
tho acquisition Of all the waters NJ
Mil creek, Rig Cottonwood and Ut
Ne Cottonwood creeks, nor N any par
llcular part " either " those streams
The committee simply Expressed tho
opinion that those waters could be ac'
qulrcd, M fast ~ the necessities ~ Tho
city required. and N was careful ~
state tho reasons for entertaining this
holIof The voters were capable OF
WdglnR for themselves IA 10 how TAI
the reasons given Justified tho opinion
Thoy Wero 10 determine by their votes
Wholher on not the plan should hc car.
llpA out They voted for the bonds and
Chat meant the carrying out 0f the Plan
u6 Gar aY n Was practicable 10 do no.
4 substantial compliance with The
plan In Oll that IN required and al'
though ID might not be possible 10 car
rv n out IN every detail and 10 lhC
fullest oNlcnL 40 long nv there " n
substantial compliance, m good inth
lhor0 rin be- no question NJ tho velldll,
Of the proceedings Conditions are Tho
Same now as when tho plan was sub
mlllod. md lhp NDmo rcaNuUN NOW OK
~ which then caused the voters to no
l.ovo TINT u could ana would be car,
Ned out
For yoors lho growth ana develop,
mru NJ tho rlly have been retarded by
reason W the scarcity ~ nv WUtor sup
uly Property hNs been In danger Nnt
Insurance rates have been exceptionally
hlgh, there honH mo- ample protector
ugamul Ore rhc health ~ The peopl,
has suffered because the city has moi
had mnlUoNl water Cor sprmkllnR m,
snOflg and other municipal purposes
Af Nyo hiyu shown. the only mcans rs
Vhlph the rily can ncreAso itg Wdtcl
SUNNY R through Che exchange NJ IN
urrliiuu water inr potable water, Thb
| rpn only me- accomplished md tho Wulo
| utilized through the lpulnoc of bonds
We therefore commend ihc case 10 thl
| rnIrWl ana earnest consideration OF tht
| court believing mat n viii rlapo mcl
n construction mon the Constitution
nH Nlll enable the cliy iO cSUloiio N
s'Or from thc present dcplouhlc rnndl
ton for which ihcrc ls mo- other relief