The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-05-09
PROVO PEOPLE INDIGNANT.
Tired After Twenty-Five Year Wait
for Good Depot.

TO the Salt Lake Herald:
Your article in Wednesdays Herald on
the Provo depot matter was greatly APP
prectated by the citizens, who have not
heretofore known the facts. The senti-
ment of this community is strongly in
faVor OF granting the franchise and
against the few obstructionists and their
camp followers In view of the fact that
Judge Booth had disqualified himself by
signing a protest to the city council
against granting the franchise, TO say
nothing of making his wishes known in
the matter to one of the councilmen. il
is q positive surprise to many of our cit
liens that the judge would even enter
tain motion to grant temporary re-
straining order.
If he is qualified to hear the case on
its final hearing, and he admits that he
is. he was certainly disqualified from
granting the temporary injunction. the act
disquaiifying him to hear the case having
been committed prior to that time.
While the effect of the injunction may
delay the depot matter for a short time,
the ObStructioniSts cannot defeat it. and
no one knows this better than they do.
1t would be a deploFable state of al
fairs if a few individuals, by reason OF
their financial strength. could deprive 2
community of 5000 people of proper and
adequate depot facilities. and for no other
reason than they cannot dictate its lOcd-
ton, and yet that is the sOlep urpose OF
the obstructionists. In your article re-
ferred TO your reporter quotes Uncle
Jesse knight as follows:
II learned that the city council stood [
to in favor of the franchise. The Third
West street depot site is a selfish prop
OsitiOn. Ny appearance in the dispute If
due solely to my interests in the Brigham
Young university. and my desire to see
fair play TO property owners in Provo. Ii
there is a row between the east and west
side it was certainly started by the west
side.
Mr.. Knight. ii will be understood is the
plaintiff in the Injunction proceedings
ri =
Provo who will say that the location Ol
the depot on Third West street will work
the least hardship on the university. Mr.
Knight himself cannot show wherein the
university will suffer in the slightest de-
gree. On the other hand, the large ma
jority of citizens of Provo are becoming
rather tired of the university being drawn
into every local matter that comes up.
They think those charged with the re-
spOnsibiity of conducting this great edu-
cational institute will do well to keep il
out of local issues.
Now. let's see about this charge of self
ishness Mr.. Knight makes: If 1t is selfish
for the sO-Called west side TO offer a site
for the new library and also for the Fed
eral building, was il not equally selfish
on the part of the east side to offer sites.
In these two instances the east side won.
the west lost and took their medicine.
When the location of the depot was be-
ing considered by the railroads. the east
side advocated Academy avenue. the
west side Third West The latter was de
cided upon bv the railway officials. for
reasons that no one could object to. I'M
less actuated by downright selfishness.
When il was thought that the franchise
would be granted the east side. through
Mr.. Knight, in an attempt to defeat it.
took the matter into court. The RESPONSE
bility. therefore, for whatever row there
may be certainly rests with the east side.
The position Of the obstTuctionists in this
controversy is simply absurd. and one that
they cannot maintain The people here
have been ciamoTing for suitable depot ia
cilities for twenty-five years. and the time
is near at hand when they will take the
matter in their own hands and send the
ObstFuctiOmStS to the rear.
w. Z. S
Provo Nav