Show > ENGINEERS SMITH tf lORK 5IUS Not Opposed to a Canal But Objecting Ob-jecting to the Canal a Surveyed SALT LAKE Car April 11880 Editors Herald In your editorial of today you announce an-nounce the discovery of a manifest opposition ID the pr posed Jordan and Salt Luke City Canal Now Mr Editor if you will allow us space we will define our position in this matter unmistakably In the first place we do not oppose the building build-ing oUts canal nor have we advo cased any particular method of Detaining De-taining 1 supply of waterfor this city though the suggestions of some correspondents respondent in regard to the reservoir reser-voir system is i we think deserving ot careful consideration as numerous instances of tbe success of that method can be cited Tbe great cry for months past has been for a canal Where or bow the present plan originated origi-nated is ot no interest or importance to us We want watar and must have i And we want the greatest necessary amount for the least possible sible cot I was presumable the data in possession of tho Council was sufficient and the deduc tons therefrom ample to enable hem by intelligent comparison to adopt that plan giving the greatest necessary result by the least possible expenditure Acting on this supposition suppo-sition we certainly should have voted yes But when justly and in compliance with urgent and repeated requests of voters the Council finally made public the plan which they had not only adopted but were actually carrying into execution and after carefully reading which we claimed as our own in common with other property owners and voters of this city to whom it was addressed and as such owners we did not only as aright a-right but also as a duty to all whose money w3 to be used in the execution execu-tion of the work examined the submitted sub-mitted plans from a professional point of view and published the result as you are aware We did this in as modest and courteous a manner as possible and the conclusions to which we then came remain unaltered and we now repeat that the proportion of the various sections of the proposed ditch to each other is such as must result in a failure to deliver more ban onesixth the quantity of water which the Councils address warrants us in expecting and we should feel blamable did we not emphatically em-phatically I manifest opposition to eo ridiculous a plan That a certain amount of water will run down and be discharged through the canal there i is no question But i our object is to obtain the greatest quantity of water with the least expense we must so alter its proposed proportions as to secure uniformity of discharge through eah section In the plan adopted one section of the ditch that of least discharging capacity governs the usefulness use-fulness of all and i this section of least capacity is sufficient why make the others six times its capacity i economy is an object 1 The plan simply proposes an unwarranted and extravagant waste of work at the upper or an enlargement to undesirable undesir-able and expensive dimensions at the lower section of the canal Now because be-cause we point out these defects in a plan for which we are asked to subscribe sub-scribe means we are denounced as fault finders and jealous conspirators conspira-tors who doginthe mangerlike object ta everything that is done simply because we do not do i We hope you will not construe this into a personal criticism of the City Council Wo are not discussing i bereons but plans The individuals who are responsible and the degree of censure merited by tbe adopters of so curious a canal philosophy we leave for ethers to determine One more question Admilfrng as you say that Mr Dinwoodey is a successful and competent furniture dealer is that evidence in the least hat Mr Little could not suggest anew a-new railroad plan of which he was previously ignorant Or vise rer3a Or tbat the Oity Council because they are all honest and impartial men and have made a success of life cannot can-not learn of others what they themselves them-selves have never studied In conclusion and for the information informa-tion of voters the matter having been referred to by Compos Mentis CE in your issue of this morning we will say that from actual and exhaustive experiments made by several eminent engineers it is found that in order to prevent scouring of the channel a greater velocity than that shown below should not be allowed in canals passing through the vaiious materials aa follows Soft clay M ft per second hoarse sand and gravel 34 Fine sand 3 i travel 1 in in dirimetori Pebbles 1 in 3H I Heavy shingle 4 I Soft rock 45s Notwithstanding all the information informa-tion gained by years of experiment and observation of competent men we are told that in the canal now being constructed three and a half feet is the mean velocity per second in the principal section The character of the soil as is well known has but medium tenacity acd stable banks with such velocity cannot be expected expec-ted With a hope that motives other than to supply the acknowledged deficiency de-ficiency of water on a plan most effective and attended with tbe least expense may not be imputsd to us We arc with a decided opposition to be present planYours Yours truly SMITH DOBEMUS |