The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-03-30
CITY HAS NO WATER
TO TURN INTO It.
HaS No Right to Divert One
Drop of Water From
Stream.
MORRIS GANG MADE
NO CONTRACT FOR FLUID
Conclusions of Legal Depart
ment of City on the Cues
tion Are Sensational.

ti0n Are Sensational.
Now that a searching investigation has
been launched. there appears TO be every
assurance that when the clear light OF
day Is thrown upon the methods pursued
by the Morris Church gang. In It's opera
tions In connection with the proposed
increase Of the water supply OF the city.
that already discredited administration
will be found not only to have been no.
toriously and outrageously inefficient, but
criminally negligent as well
Robbed of Thousands.
The fact Is, as now appears from all
the records that have been examined, that
this gang of incompetents and looterS.
during the year 1915. robbed the city of
tens of thousands OF dollars. which were
eurrepttlously put into the pockets OF
alleged holders OF water rights in Big
Cottonwood creek, and for which, so far
as the contracts show, the city has not
received. and is not promised. In terms,
one drop of water which can find It's way
into the conduit
Startling Revelations.
resolution at the session OF the City Coun-
ell. last Monday evening instructing the
Committee on Waterworks to investigate
and report as TO the water, if any, owned
or controlled. by the city in Big Cotton
wood canyon. even those citizens who
we're fairly well acquainted with the
methods pursued by Morris and his OBJ
noxlous "gum-shoe" committee were not
10, Ct.
imminent.
Why It Was Introduced
Mr.. Ferry made the statement. al the
time of the introduction of his resolution.
that he had oeen asked to Introduce II by
the legal department OF the municipal
ity adding that the legal department had
been unable to discover that the city
owned any water rights In the canyon.
Since that time Judge Hiles, City Attor-
ney. has carefully examined the only
agreements that he has been able to find
three in number-in which the city has os-
tensibly agreed TO exchange Utah lake
water for water from Big Cottonwood
and his conclusions are sensational 10 say
the least. In a report drawn up for pre-
sentation TO the Committee on Water
works. Judge Hlles says
Judge Hiles's Findings
There are three different agreements for
exchange OF water from Big Cottonwood
creek, namely:
Agreement with Big Ditch Irrigation
company. dated June N 1906 Agreement
recites that city shall furnish a continuous
flow OF water from April TO October In
each year. which shall be equivalent OF
7l-2oo of flow OF Big Cottonwood creek.
not exceeding thirty-fve @5) C T. s.,
and during the remaining part of year an
amount equal to 1-Goth OF flow OF creek
The party of the second part does
not agree to furnish to the city any
specified amount of water of Big Cot
tonwood creek.
Nice Little Agreement,
Second-Agreement with Big Cotton
wood Lower Canal company, a corpora
ton. dated June q 1905. City agrees to
furnish second party between April and
October /, for irrigation purposes an
amount OF water which shall be equal TO
3l-2+0ths of flow of Big Cottonwood
creek, not exceeding twenty Coz c. T. r.,
measured and ascertained by commits
sioner.
The party of the second part does
not in terms agree to deliver any
specific part of the waters of Big Cot
tonwood creek. But the city binds it
self to defend the title of the party
Of the second part to tho waters of
Big Cottonwood creek, if any it has.
Agreements One-Sided
Third-"Hm Ditch Contract "-Agree
ment with B. b. Bitner William C Park
John d. c. Hamilton. James C. Hamilton.
Mary Ann Hamilton. James d. Hin.
Emma S. Hill. William c. Hil. James
Gordon and Charles Park. OF the second
part. dated June IS. 1895
City agrees to deliver to the second
parties between April and October /. for
irrigation purposes, water in continuous
flow eaual 10 7-l5Oths Of the flow of Big
Cottonwood creek. as nscertaIned and de-
termined by the commissioner TO be ap-
pointed for that purpose. The water Is TO
be delivered into the "Hnl Ditch" at the
point where the Hill ditch connects with
Big Cottonwood creek
There is not promise on the part of
the second parties that they will de-
liver to the city any specific amount
OF Big Cottonwood water. And, like
all other contracts, there is in 1t no
covenant that they have any title or
good right to convey any winter what
ever
Agreements one-Sided.
There are stipulations for forfeiture
Of city's rights under the contract If