OCR Text |
Show (ITV LIMITS. Editors Herald: Tbe question of city limits oft times disturbs our equanimity aud ia pro ductive of eoiue trouble u lo what is, or what U not tlio limits of eome cities iiwuy dowu 6cuth or up uortb. The years dom lSd5 lo' ISoS saw many vast areas of public domain laid 00 into what ure termed tUo in-corporaled in-corporaled limits avernn'fg iu many instances miles square as cities. Some oily boundaries were, by Ihe legislature, defined, as per request ol the incorporators, by lines that to-day are almost impossible to trace. Section 10 of miny charters granted prescribed the holding ol certain land outside of their cily limits for munici pal purposes such aa cemeteries, etc., but the arees incorporated in some counties join together, beiiCB no possibility pos-sibility of having cemete'y, quarantine, quaran-tine, etc, outside. Ultimately congress (March 3d, 1877,) reported its definition of a city area and brought it up to 2,560 acres if needed and could be held in a compact com-pact form "for trade aud municipal purposes," not farms. Muuy cities availed themselves of the first bill passed known aa the general town-site law based on population. These cities, as natural persons, through their mayors, eo entered, obtained patent, and issued deeds to let cwners as by said law required, they having first bad the nrea of their purchase surveyed into lots, streets, alleys, etc. This plat so made aud recoided ie designated as the cily ol . The cily by so doing itself defined its claim. No matter as to the legislative legisla-tive grant. Tbe act ol congress saying 2,560 acres should bo tbe maximum of a city except risk Lake city, which obtained a Bpecial relief bill, superseded super-seded the aclB of the legivUture. All Inniia over tho ii.otiO acred are declared open to preemption or homestead home-stead entry, which declaration would be null and void it, as anme bold, the legislature must repeal their grants of V6G5 aud 1S63, or up to date. It uetded no legislative action to Bay whether they would acquieace in tbe provisions of tbe fuland bill wherein it interfered with the probate and other courts of this territory. It was eoough if congress ea;d eo and so; the sails of Utah must be trimmid accordiugly, however inconvenient incon-venient it might be. The legislature by its act of 1S78, amending city charter, gives cities the power to arrest oflemters in cases jf misdemeanors commiittd within their corporate limits. Which limits? Those difiued by the lines o I actual purchase, or those jf questionable finding or lealtlj T Probably some cities to-d iy try cases ol misdemeiuor having no ordinances to cover Ihem, committed anywhere in their heretofore area of ma-rporalions. They claim a supervisory super-visory right of domain and water, solely on tbe word "Control of the ater courees leadiog to and within the city," and suits are instituted and the former mulcted of Eumsin fines for interfering with water perhaps four r five miies away from the city plot. And in the question ol a school district as to a voluntary lax, some citizens consider these precinct or district lints as interfering with their rights because in tbia precinct four miles from tueir residem e, they have land and it lies within ihe city limits n incorporated eay in U6S. Taxes are exact, d fr irn men living n their individual preemptions and uomesteads who receive no benefits whatever from e;ud la.t.ition, simply became the Loiiusti-ud km iu i he original limi'.d of a city. To me H Mt't ms nut eaiw liable fr anyone to presume that it Mr, J:ly is lobe considered as a uiiur.il pertou how he can go outside- oi his purchase and control land and water, aeas aud collect taxes, etc., any mory than Mr. A, who buys, at $1.25 per acre, 160 acres of publio dumaiu of the United States. Each can only control con-trol bis purchase. As I understand Dillon on incorporations, that which a city ordains to do, consistent with Us charter powers expressed, not implied, im-plied, it can do, and no more. I further query Itm: Can a city not having ordained the crimes defined as misdemeanors by this territory, try them by a city justice, seeing he is elected to try all cases arising under ordinances, the city prosecuting attorney planting the euit in the namo ol the peopla of the territory of Uuvh and county of , iLe city being entirely iguored, save its treasury? Is it not important to snow the l.mits of a city, lor according accord-ing to si:me people's construction any-wuere any-wuere in an incorporated six miles square the city has the right and power to arrest, etc. In cases of liquor tratnc, though carried on a person's homestead a Jew miles away from the platted city sites, the city claims precedence uver tho county, the former perhaps iuditiereut, while the county is eueryelic in the suppression sup-pression ol the liquor trufhe. Here tbe question of limits comes in again. A cily can ordain nothing on laud it does not own. A ' man is held accountable for interfering witb a water ditch flowing through his laud becauBesaid ditch Howe through the city proper four miles away, and which ditch, as a city, it neither dug, cleaned cut nor owned. Much of tbn dilch m private properly. There sro cities that believe be-lieve because the legislature said in the charter they should have "control ol all water courses leading to the city," it gives them 1 'conuol," a sort of property right ul water iu all this area flowing into tho cily. They issue water certificates, (or so many acres of land, to ha irrigated each season, etc. How tnii cau be con-1 con-1 Btrued as trade and municipal purposes, pur-poses, I cannot conceive. That a cily should have a right to secure good, clear, wholesome waler fur its inhabitants, noue will dony; but because it has grown from a handful to thousands it has no right tj rob tbe homesteuder for a city's people. If a city wants more water it must -develop more as a natural person, and at the coat of those who desire to live therein. It is a pertinent perti-nent question anyhow, il tbe United States in the issuing of a patent re-BerveB re-BerveB water and water rights to local laws, and it a territorial legislature can cede, aa some construe it, all the walers Mowing into the city limits, and make the city council the sole arbiter of one of the dearest rights in this couulry. Tbe water rights of a city at best are as a usufruct. These questions us above briefly touched, are important, and if not so to-day will bo in ihe near future. I am free to admit, so far as I am concerned, there is no question as to city limits, (or as a natural person who owub onl 1G0 acres defines bis bounds, sc a city defines her's by a due survey and record of plat. One question to be answered in final proof of pnemption is that this land is "not vithiu the limits ct any incorporated incor-porated limits, or seltled upon by any bu-iuess or tiaJu of said city." Now, again, what limitB? I answer, the limits of tne city purchase. And the mayor's cr rtificate is aeked by the local land officers, that his preemption preemp-tion claim doeB not interfere with the city entry. To ask a mayor lo relinquish bis right over all other area emuraced in certain limiis before the laud was ever surveyed by the United States, is in conflict with tbe provisions of the act of congrets; beside.", tho mayor holds no power of relinquishment ot land not within his pi.teut. As well ask us old herd ground men, hb of days of yore, to give up our herd groundd to the United Ktales. Wo hud nothing to relinquish. The question is only asked aud sworn to to preserve intact the mayor's purchase. pur-chase. One of Many. February 10th, 1&79. |