The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-03-31
FERNY ATTEMPTS To
INSTRUCT HILES
Makes Desperate Effort to De-
fend Action of Morris
Church Gang.
CLAIMS AGREEMENT WITH
WATER USERS is ON FILE
Amount, However, Is Not Stated
in the Contracts Made
With City.


the operations In Big Cottonwood cam
yon, before the Committee on Water
works of the present Ciy Council, Thurs-
day evening
T.. 8 Fernstrom. who was high in the
councils OF that notorious secret gum
shoe" body, came in cooked and primed
with alleged information end attempted
to instruct City Attorney Hies and AS
sistant City Attorney Dlninny as TO their
duties
Purpose Of Meeting.
When the committee was called to or
der Mr.. Mulvey. chairman of the COM
mittec, announced that the meeting was
Tor the purpose of considering the Forty
resolution. This resolution, has here
tofore been stated. was introduced, a
tho request Of the legal department OF the
city. for the purpose OF ascertaning what.
II any. rights the city owns IN the waters
OF the Big Cottonwood stream, through
exchanges and otherwise.
Hiles Makes Statement.
City Attorney Hilcs stated that there
was some uncertainty as to the water Sc
cured by the city. through the contracts
entered into with three ditch companies,
and pointed out that the contracts con-
Veyed TO the city u portion of the water.
without defining the amount conveyed He
also pointed out that there was no data
or memorandum by which he could ascer-
tain what amount OF water the city was
supposed to have secured.
How Question Arose
His attention had been called to the
matter. Judge Hiles said, while arguing
Il demurrer in the KnudSen case. He was
asked how much water the city owned In
the creek. but could only reply that II
was none OF the other sides business. II
was important. he added. that the City
Attorneys office be advised as to just
what the city owned. Judge Hiles then
pointed out that the contracts conveyed
a portion OF the water. but did not specify
what portion.
Fernstrom Breaks Loose
Fernstrom was upon his feet before
Judge Hlle5 had concluded and, as soon
AS Chairman MulVey recognized him he
began TO tell that the record OF what
water Is owned by the three companies
with which the city has contracts is on
file in the office OF the County Clerk. II
was shown by an arbitration agreement,
entered into in 1880 Fernstrom said. that
the Big Cottonwood Lower Canal COM
pany owned So 1870 or the water from
January TO June 30. and 6-l 1890 for the
remainder OF the season. Hill Ditch 2-6
1910 and 2-S 1870 for the two seasons.
Big Ditch, l9-G 1000 and 2l-7 l0-60.
Pertinent Question Asked
But why was this not embraced In the
contracts?" Judge Hiles asked
The companies refused TO state ex-
act!y what they owned" was Fernstron
reply, There is dispute between the
Big Ditch and the Green Ditch as TO 2-s0,
and they didn't want to do anything that
would cause trouble
"Who drew the contracts" was asked
The attorney for the canal companies"
was the reply.
What was the objection to stating the
amounts OF water claimed?"
THEY just wouldn't do II; that was all"
ALI Not Named.
Further questions developed the fact
that all the water users are not named In
the arbitration agreement, or decree
they claimed?" asked Mr. Dininny.
They didn't want to defend lawsuits"
Fcrnstrom answered.
But they want to defend them"
said Mr. Dininny.
Yes, that's right was the reply.
The "Gum-Shoe" Committee
This exchange between Fernstrom and
Mr.. Dininny was followed by a general
discussion. during which tho action of
Council discussed Wells and Fern
strom declared that the Special Water
committee" had only the best interests OF
tho city at heart, and that all members OF
the Council we're welcome at Its meetings.
Bomb Touched Of
what do you say about that. Mr..
Davis2" asked Chairman Mulvcy.
II do not know anything about what
tho committee did" was the reply Of
Davis. "as the meetings were generally
5ecret AT the last one attended I was
told by Mr. Snow that they were going
to bunko the farmers. l was also told
that they were going TO buy Spring creek
for Sl35 600 and the one thing that | did
that | am proud of Is that [ assisted in
defeating the Spring creek proposition.
didn't attend any more meetings, because
I was told that they were not open to
the citizens, and DIDN'T believe in doing
business that way
Martins Prediction.
And 1 predicted right along in the
suits as the results of the most unbusi-
ncsslike way in which this water propo-
sItion was handled" interrupted Martin
II protested against the form OF these
then, that we will have expensive litign-
ton over them. 1t always looked to mo
like a scheme by which those people hoped
TO get their clutches on the city"
How 1t Was Worked.
Davis then declared that as he under.
stood IT, Snow, attorney for the canal
companies. and the man who drew the
agreements, went TO his clients and told
them to get the best bargain they could
get as the city had to have the water
Before the adjournment OF the commit
tce Judge Hiles asked Fernstrom II he
or the committee, ever made any report
in writing showing what water was owned
by the companies with which the city pro-
posed TO exchange water
Just Talked About.
Fernstrom replied that he did not but
that II was talked about and generally
understood.
That may be true remarked Jude,
H,Ies. but the Council should have had
= report In writing. so that the city gov
,rnment would be advised as to what wos
teinr done Such reports should be on
fle in the CITY Attorneys office"
Regret of Wells.
Wells expressed regret that the matter
Nd come up, and hoped that the Councn
would see It's cay clear 10 negotiate for
additional rights In the canyon.
Srhc statement was made curing the dis
o,-ssion that CITY Attorney Dey, Assist
ant city Attorney Bramei and Associate