The Morning examiner. [volume] (Ogden, Utah) 1904-1910, 1909-03-07
AGES REPLY

II have been shown a copy OF Mr..
DeVine's interview, concerning the
matters referred to in my communica
ton which appeared In this mornings
issue of the Examiner. ! do not see
that it calls for any extended state
ment from me. 1t Is true that | was
one of the attorneys In the litigation
between the Ogden WaterworkS COM
pany and the Union Pacific Railroad
company. but 1t is not true that 1 par
ticipated in the transaction by which
tho Waterworks company obtained a
deed to the land In question
when the railroad company began
the construction of its pipe line in
Taylor's canyon, the WateTworkS COM
pdny being the owner of section 50,
began an action TO cnjoin the con-
struction of the line across that Sec
ton The Gills commenced 4 SINH
lar action 10 enjoin the trespass upon
the north half of section So. j was
not employed by the ellis. The rail-.
road company answered the Injunction
suit and also fled cross-complaint
iii each case. asking to be adjudged
entitled 10 the use of all the waters of
Taylor'S canyon. Pending this litigation
OF action the Waterworks company
obtained warranty deed to the north
half OF section 35 from the ellis, and
after that fled supplemental COM
plant, setting up the fact that II had
acquired title to this land. So far as
| was concerned, [ had no knowledge
of any conditions attached to the
transactions, but supposed the water
company had paid for the land as
stated in the deed The first intima-
tion / had of anything 70 the contrar-
airy was when l read In the Standard
report of the proceedings OF the city
council in which 1t was stated that the
city attorney had reported that the op-
ton on the Gill land had been taken
up.
Being surprised at this statement,
I went TO the county recorders office
and found the deeds from the GillS
to the water company and from the
latter TO the city on record as stated
in my communication. | then went
TO the city recorders office and found
the resolution of the city council au-
thorizlng the payment of the S4,3Si.l0,
and also deed from the water COM
pany to Gil. which was marked can
celled by Mr.. DeVine. This Is the
first time | had known or heard or
such deal. This could not be an OPP
ton. given by the ellis for the puT-
chase OF this land by the water com
pany, for the company had war
ranty deed which had been duly re-
corded.
IF the company had not paid for
the land and had given this deed TO /
Gill as security for the payment OF J
the balance of the purchase price, 1t |
was nothing more than a mortgage /
and should have been recorded so that 1
IL would have been notice TO the pub |
lie. when asked to vote bonds, that |
the city would get only very small
equity in this land7 And that In or
der TO acquire title TO this land the /
city would be compelled to pay over
81 900 more.
Why was this escrow deed With
held from the record?
Il thought. and | think the taxpay-
ers of the city generally supposed
that for the s155. 400 the city was get
ting the water system, subject to
100000 bonded Indebtedness. and this
along with other lands, but 1t now
transpircs that the cost was $lb9.-
ISllO. In addition TO the bonded in
debtednesS
AS I have said did not know that
The ellis had any interest in this land
after having conveyed by warranty
deed to the water company and tho
records show that the water company
had complete title and that the pur-
chase price had been paid.
BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES
1T MAKE TO THE PEOPLE OF
THIS CITY WHETHER | KNEW
THAT THE GILLS HAD AN INTER
EST IN THE LANDS OR NOT? Tho