The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-22
McndaciouS Newspaper Pei,,.
Canard Upon Its HandipI'
of Readers.
FACTS REFUTE STATEMENT
OF THE MORMON OprI
Second Assessment on Sidevl
Extension 1OS Is Lower Thu
the First One. 7

With its usual mcndacitv and
disregard Of facts the Smoot ,,,T.
charged in an editorial Nod
morning that the city, concludi,.
could get more money, had .tar,,,'
for a new assessment, at bioba,
urc' on sidewalk extension n
and fooiishly advised the propenv /
ers who have paid in their fs.
sessment not to accept the citys y.
of their money back, but to sDu,,
and hold the city to It's first cou,,.
The p" Mouth - wildly exclaims.
"There was n straight cont,,.t
tween the city and the prope,tS
crs. The city agreed 10 build III Y
walk for a certain sum and tbs l.
crty owners accepted the prono.la
and bound the bargain by tbe pss'
Of their money. Then the IL,
ceded from It's contract, which
no right to do. The city copcluS.;
could get more money and arranoJ
n new assessment, at higher fr'
The promise is made to give basi{7
the property owners the MONEY +;
have paid, and then assess them ~
at the increase. They should naf
cept the tender Of money--if Il AVE-,
made. They should hold the city k
performance Of the contract.p
False Assumption.
Then the mendacious "Moutbp -
on TO say that the pretended rea,on
raising the price is not well iourd'
as material is no higher now than vl
the original assessment was made
labor is cheaper, But the city m
gers saw n chance to graft, accord
10 the Z" Mouth ~
Now for the facts in the case.
extension originally was started alr|
two years ago. Notice of intention
published and bids were advertised
and the work was about to be pro.4
ed with, when the Republican leg
ture passed law making CONTRACT
public work the precise extent OF M
was not certain void, and for the
being the proposed improvement fen
the ground, because the exact miII<
of sidewalk extension No. l0s wsi|
known. So the Republican legislc|
and not the city broke the conirac.|
Now as to the city arranging 4
new assessment nt n higher figlre.
original assessment, contained n
notice of intention, was seventy1
cents q front foot. The assessment
der the contract recently let to ID
Kennedy is G1l5 cents trout foot|
per cent lower. This explode
- Mouth 's'' charges that the city
ceded from the original contras,
cause il saw n chance to graft.
The Mouth advises the pro-
holders 10 hold the city to It's oIc.
contract, made void by the legisla/
If the property owners were to a
this foolish advice 1t would cost
in the neighborhood of $4,000 mon
the improvement than under ths
cnt contract, The FMouth" Z" fun|
advises the property owners not %
cept the money rendered back On
original assessment, which is co.
as foolish advice as the first. AppU
$4,000 was paid into The
treasury under the original asss27
Cost Is Less.
The cost TO the property oED4
10 per cent less a front foot npdH
new contract than under the Old
this basis the property ownes
have paid their first assessment q
apply this on the first assessnent
der the new contract and still ban
coming back TO them. The Mosr
if accepted, which is mol
likely, would cost the property u
$500 on their first assessment az
eral times that amount on the VIZ
tension.
As a matter of fact the Azs'
party councilmen have not very 2
y advocated the return TO the pio
owners who have paid their m
'essment of their money, but hayr
IN favor of allowing tle
assessments to stand and either
,he excess TO the taxpayer or aQ}
IN the second assessment. N'
yho is member of the minority .
council, has been insisting thai w
easements be refunded and The 4
have about decided
lin have his way in the matta
east, at the session of the council
lay night Mr.. Hall s motion tna
,ity treasurer be instructed 70
.p a list of those who have pa'a
'riginal assessment with vleW,
the money went
unanimously. II