The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-08-10
EFFORT TO OBSCURE ISSUE
WILL NOT SUCCEED
Members of Council Hold They
Acted in Accordance With
Ordinance.

torney-General Breeden IN the interests
Of the Republican party, by making
City Council, will prove futile in it's
purpose. An attempt TO influence a
Judge in his decision OF a question of
law for partisan purposes is too import
ant question to be relcgated from the
public mind by the Introduction Of
minor matters.
The Councilmen. Messrs. Fernstrom,
Preece, Tuddenham, Davis and Martin,
arc charged with having illegally ap-
propriated to themselves certain sums
of money for services rendered while
acting on the Board of Equalization of
the Wnterworks committee. The ordi-
nances of the city, revised in 1908, al"
low members of this board $500 per
diem for such work and this is the
amount that members are charged with
having illegally appropriated.
1t is absurd to make any comparison
between the Salt Lake and Ogden Coun-
cilmanic cases What the Salt Lake
Councilmen did they did under an or
dinance, the express terms of which
give them such permission; the Ogden
Aldermen acted without any such or
dinance and in direct contravention Of
the statute. If any Salt Lake Council
man has done wrong, to repair the In
jury he will not defy the statutes, as
WAS OOuc Ill Iuo OSueu cases.
Interviews With Councilmen.
Interviews were obtained yesterday
with the Councilmen under charge and
their views and explanations follow:
i. S. Fernstrom, Democrat: HMy po-
sition Is this: That we drew the money
under an ordinance and l believe we
are entitled to it. The difference be-
tween the Ogden cases and ours Is that
our compensation was granted by ordi-
nance, according to the statute, and
they had no ordinance on the sub ject
at all at Ogden
NJ. j. Tuddenham, Democrat: eff You
had asked me last Monday evening,
when L went to Council meeting, if [
knew Of anything unlawful, I would
have told you positively that nothing
of the kind had ever come under my
observation. [ never thought was nc
cepting q cent illegally from Salt Lake
City. I DON y believe ever did-know
never did. | have been in the Council
for years and | know that resolutions
have been passed for several years
prior to the passage Of this ordinance
authorizing the Auditor to pay the
water board for their services. The
law s5ipulates that the water board
August and the last Saturday in Sep
tember, and If we had wanted to take
money from Salt Lake City illegally we
could have met and adjourned every
day; but we do not do ANYTHING Of
the kind. 1t was seldom that more
than quorum wns present We never
went there or drew one nickel more
than we were absolutely entitled to.
When that ordinance was passed in 1903
spoke to the Attorney about it, and
he said it was perfectly legal When
tllC ordinance wos prpeepto5 ann
OF us had been reelected or even nom
mated for office, but owing to the
length of time it took to revise these
ordinances 1t was along late in the wear
before it was finally passed, and that
was after our election. / never had
q doubt but what 1t was legal. I know
1t would have been illegal provided I
Knew l was going to serve on the Water
committee, to have voted for that ordi.
nance, but then ] did not know it and
no one else knew it, and I believe the
vote was unanimous. The first thing a
new Council does is to name a presi-
dent and he, later, names the commit
tees, and no member knows what COM
mittees he is going to be named on, -
Revision of Ordinances,
A. j. Davis, American: 'I base nv
position on the fact that we revised
the ordinances in 1903 and the members
or the Council at that time voted for
the adoption OF the ordinances as re-
vised. This ordinance was sent to tbe
Council IN September, before the elec.
ton, by tho City Attorney at that
time 1t was long, tedious task to
adopt these ordinances, because they
were adopted by paragraphs. We would
meet four or FIVE times during the
week and some nights we would not get
through more than one paragraph of
an ordinance, / was reelected in 1909
and took my oath Of Office in January.
1904, and when the ordinance was
passed it was beyond me to know who
the Waterworks board would be. or
even the president Of the Council for
the next year; So far as L am con-
cerned, everything has been perfectly
honorable and legal without any pur-
pose or intent of wrongdoing"
j. I'll. Preece, Republican: f1I did NOT
vote for the ordinance, / was not a
member of the Council, not being
elected until the fall of 1908. T recoi
lect when the payment came up for the
first time in 1904 on the payroll The
Auditor held up the payroll for several
weeks, seeking the advice of the CITY
Attorney on the matter, and it was
hnally paid, the decision being that
the payment was legal J. am not WORRY.
ing about the NATTER
Il; D. Martin. American. "I was
elected to the Council in November.
1903, prior to the passage of the ordi,
nance liking. the compensation for
CouncIimen, but did not take Office un-
til after the ordinance was passed, az
course, at the time of my election and
also at the time L took office, I did
not know that I would serve on the
Board of Equalization. [ was not ac.
quainted with the nature Of the ordi-
nance which had been passed, fixing a
compensation for service on the board,
and was not aware that I would receive
any pay until my warrant was handed
me. / did not question for a moment
but what the transaction was all right.
as J. supposed the Auditor would NOT
have drawn the warrant if I had NOT
been entitled to the pay"