THE RIGHT OF CONDEMNATION. We'take it that the opinion submitted by City Attorney Dey on the right of the City to take by condemnation under the right of eminent domain the water right at the mouth of Big Cottonwood, will settle this question in the minds of all candid men The Smith monopoly concern claims thl right under a doubtful doubt-ful succession from an old use that has not been exercised for so many years that It Is now probably forfeited. But whether It is so or not, makes no difference differ-ence In the main proposition. The city's right to condemn under the exercise of the right of eminent domain dce9 not depend upon the ownership, but is applicable ap-plicable no matter whose the rght is This opinion is fortified by statute and precedent in such manner as to be Impregnable. Im-pregnable. But the reason why the opinion Is so especially applicable at this time is dls-. dls-. redltable to those Councllmen who are ant agonizing the cltyls interests and fighting for the interest of President Smith's company These Councllmen who prefer a private Interest to the public pub-lic Interest, ore acting under the leadership lead-ership of one who seeks to connect tho Bale Of the bonds voted by the people for water Improvements with the Interest Inter-est of this Smith company and Its rob blng franchise grub. They do this because be-cause they hold their allegiance to Smith to be higher than their allegiance to the public and to their oaths. Councilman Rulon S Wells Is undoubtedly un-doubtedly the man who has brought about this false situation. He is agent of the Mutual Life, and is endeavoring lo hold up the sale of the bonds under that company's bid. The pretense under un-der whh h this is done is that the city cannot get this water right without coming to terms with the Smith monopoly; that is, passing the Smith franchise grab. But City Attorney Dey shows conclusively that there Is a better bet-ter and more satisfactory way to get that water right, and Attorney F. S. Rlt hards, who has had large experience In all local water questions, agrees with him. 1'nder these circumstances, we regard It as unfortunate that Councilman Wells was sent to New York as one of the city's representatives to urge upon the Mutual company the validity of the bond issue and the competence of tho city to fully ratisfy the requirements of the situation by obtaining that water right aside from the granting of the Smith franchise grab. For, Councilman Council-man Wells is an aggressive champion of that grab, and, it Is more than probable prob-able that he has done more than any other one person to prejudice the Mutual In favor of the stand which It has taken with respect to these bonds. He is liable, lia-ble, therefore, to nullify whatever protestations pro-testations may be made In behalf of the bonds, considered Independent of the franchise grab. We confess that in our opinion the matter would have been in a much more satisfactory condition for the public if City Attorney Dey had been sent to New York instead of Councilman Coun-cilman Wells.