Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-07-16
ANOTHER Appeal.


bonds II is signed by the Mayor and
eight councilmen. The statement en-
bodied In the document regarding the
purposes for which the money is need
ed differs from that first. presented by
the Mayor at the meeting at his office
on the first day OF May last. But 1t
agrees with later statement by coun-
rilmen. The appeal, ,hoESa'er, does not
have the signatures of the gentlemen
who constitute the minority. II Is a
one-sided, partisan appeal TO citizens
of all parties and lacks the weight that
unanimlty in the council would have
added to 1t.
The first item in the statement calls
Tor 900 for an adueduct on North
Temple street, This Improvement Is
very much needed and In every way
desirable. In fact s65.OOo may not be
near enough for the work necessary in
that part of the city. But. as we have
stated before. the City has no authority
under the Constitution TO borrow
money for any other purpose than in
rrensng the water supply, sewers, and
artificial light. The citizens have no
authority under the Constitution TO
vote an additional Indebtedness for
any other purpose than the three OK
pressly mentioned Neither the council
nor the voters have discretionary pow
ers In the matter. A vote for bonds
Tor any other purpose than those au-
thorzed by the Constitution would be
null and void, and the courts would
undoubtedly so declare.
In the appeal the Mayor and the eight
councilrnen pledge Themselves to expend
the money only In tho manner set
forth in the foregoing statement" The
value of that pledge is best estimated
In the light of precedent The mayor
himself has told the public that prom
lses made by the majority are not al
ways kept sacred. And that fact Is
very much in evidence in the manner
In which the proceeds of the last bond
lsuse were disposed of. Look at these
items
In December 1894, tho council APP
pealed to the citizens asking for mil
ion dollars TO spend on water supply
and sewers. In the official address to
the tax payers ii was stated that $780,
200 were needed for the construction of
conduit from Cottonwood to Par
ley's. The citizens authorized this
Improvement at the figure mentioned.
The contract. however, was let for a
considerably smaller sum.-something
like $233,000, We believe, not Including
pertain necessary finishing touches at
the ternini OF the conduit AZ VIII be
seen, there ought to have been al least
100000 saved on FMS item alone, after
allowing something for work not spe-
cied In the contract But instead of
saving anything, they added very near
ly 100000 10 the sum they were au-
thorized to spend on the conduit
They tell us they paid Si4S. $50. 90. in
stead OF the 100000 tho tax payers au-
thorized them to spend. BY what au.
thority Was this increase addcd2
The tax payers We're at the same time
appealed to for 100000 TO be spent on
development al Utah Lake. The money
was voted as asked for. But not a cent
mopo than sS,9l325 OF this money was
spent for the purpose for which It was
buNHollANh ~ Tue vote OF lue TAX
payers. There ought to be Slg1 10 OF
this money somewhere. unless It has
been spent otherwise than authorized
The sum of 100000 was asked for, for
Improvement OF the distribution system.
Thut request was granted by the tax
payers. But It appears that {22l ,3O4 10
was spent instead OF 100000. BY what
authority?
For repairs on the city canal $4,000
was asked, and granted The sum or
sSl ,7e8i9 It is said, was spent on this
account, by what authority?
Now. the citizens are asked FOR an
other 100000, In the light OF former
financial transactions, what reasonable
guarantee have they that tho money
will be expended as promised? what
guarantee have they that the improve
ments now estimated at 100000 win
not turn out 10 cost a mlllion2 can
public servants who spend 100000 whom
they are authorized 70 spend $500. 900
ma s'2l 900 when they are authorized 10
spend 100000, b. trusted with the ex-
penalture OF public fundsy A business
louse would discharge representative