Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-03-27
THE "FRANCHIsE" AGITATION,

The furore that has been worked up
by certain newspapers and number
of individuals In this city, some aotu-
ated by feeling Of hostility against
corporation doing business here, others
interested IN starting u rival enter
prise, and many swayed by the inhu-
ences mentioned illustrates the ease
with which popular excitement can be
aroused through the spread Of misin-
formation and the Popullstio hostility
10 corporate power. The meeting held
in the Grand Theater on Sunday night,
though not numerously attended IN con-
sequence Of the severe storm that
ragged, passed some resolutions which,
no doubt, will be endorsed by many
persons who were not present and who
do not understand, the situation any
better than some Of the manipulators
OF the movement behind the meeting,
The first Whereas opens with an
untruth as the basis Of all that fol-
lows. II is not true that "a secret
tain members OF the city council" as
20 the granting Of franchises, nor is 1t
true that one member of the council
made "brazen, shameless admissions"
TO that effect. The minutes of the
city Council will not show anything
that justlfes the statements made IN
the preamble to which we have here
referred The second Whereas is
also incorrect, because even II the City
Council were TO grant all that the Utah
Light and Railway Company asks for,
Il would not be "tantamount to the city
deciding for all time all It's rights, title
and interests IN ana to all It's streets,
alleys and public places to the afore-
said corporation" The statement Ia
a gross exaggeration, like nearly all
the allegations that have been made to
work up public excitement The third
whereas being merely deduction
from the untruthful premises from
which It Is drawn, need not be speci-
ally noticed,
the project was formed TO bring into
this city the waters OF the Cottonwoods
"a most splendid PLAN II was found
that vertain valuable properties be-
longing TO the Utah Light and Rail-
way company, which II had acquired
by purchase years ago, were necessary
10 or would aid materially In the per-
lection Of the water scheme This was
mentioned to directors Of the company
who lntmated their willingness 90 dis
pose OF them TO the city for the reason
advanced But II was stated that the
city would not be able probably TO pay
for them IN money, A remark was
made that perhaps something could
be done by the city which was needed
by the company that would do IN lieu
OF a cash payment There was no "com-
pact" or agreement entered into either
secretly" or otherwise, but the matter
was left for future consideration, Now
this should be clearly understood by
the public: The company had no inten-
ton or desire TO part with those prop
critics. They were expected TO be uti-
lizcd for the further Improvement OF
SIS business and were valued by some
OF the directors as al least $3.50 900 The
sum Of 1000 cash down has been Of
fered to the company IN writing Tor
those properties ana refused The city
was the first 20 move for the possession
Of those properties They were no,
"tendercd TO the city for any purpose
or at any price Nor Is the company
DESTROYS OF parting with them.
The member of the city council re-
ferrcd 20 in the resolutions, did not
state that there was any compact or
agreement with the company for the
concessions that had been asked for. He
went no further In his explanation than
that which we have here explained All
tho rumpus that has been made over his
remarks are groundless, What he said