Show WATER BOND CASE IS SUBMITTED Supreme Court Promises to Give an Early Decision BOTH SIDES ARE ARGUED DEFiNITION OF OWNER IS ONE OF MAIN MAlN ISSUES Arguments H boUt both oral and by brief were heard by the supreme court yes yesterday in the case of Dr G George E Ellerbeck against Salt Lake ity Mayor Richard p Morris orris and other city officials in which it is I sought to enjoin the issuance of the propos proposed water ater and sewer extension bonds V Attorneys F B Stephens and Benner X N Smith appeared for Dr Ellerbeck and the city was represented by bJ City Attorney C C De Dey and F S Richards At the conclusion 0 of the arguments the justices of court took the case under advisement promising to give it thEir earnest r l and undivided d attention md and to render a decision as soon as they can examine Ute the Dug authorities cited and prepare their conclusions Position of Relator In the brief and oral arguments of thE attorneys for the relator George GeorgeE V E ElIE rbt ck these questions were pro propounded propounded pounded arid and answered in the negative Is the Interest which the city pro proposes J poses to acquire by virtue of option contracts with the owners of Ute the wa waters watern tern from mountain streams such an ownership as is contemplated by sec section I Hon tion 4 of article 14 11 of the constitution of the slate te of Utah 7 I Can the interest of the Utah Light Railway company be acquired b by the city in order to carry out its plan as submitted to the taxpayers b by exer else of the right of eminent domain Can the city legally issue bonds not exceeding a 4 per cent additional in ind d when the works for sup supplying plying the water are not owned and controlled by it at the time of the is issuance I of such bonds bond I If the of exchange and acqui acquisition of J rawer rights submitted to the voters is abandoned or only partially carried out can bonds b hr valId the I proceeds of which must be used in a aplan aplan V plan other than that submitted to the voters and authorized by them i After Arter these thee questions had been pro propounded propounded pounded and answEred by the attorneys for the relator they declared that the water bonds being void oid t the e sewer bonds must fall wIth thEm F B StE Stephens hens who made the pal argument for the relator contend contended ed that the cit city did not propose in the plan submitted to the voters otEiS to become becom the owner of the water It was as proposed to use and lrene heme thE e ement ment with the farmers should nut not bp b carried out Much stress was laid on the meaning of the word owner it bein being contended that if the water plat was as put into effect t the city would l lx bp a renter and not an owner o of th the water Arguments for the City Cit C C De Dey arid and Attorney ne ney F S Richards for the city took up an all the questions and objections of the counsel for the relator answering them fully and citing many to sustain their contentions ThEir oral arguments were along the lines of their brief published in The Herald of yesterday esterday The They averred that there was no such thing as an absolute own ownership ownership of the water of a running stream and asserted that the contracts with the farmers to which objection had harl been raised by the relator Salt Lake Cit City as near absolute owner ownership ownership ship to the Ole waters of the Cottonwoods and other streams as it is possible to acquire The contracts contract with the farmers the water and sewer bond ordinances passed b by the city council the ad address address dress to vot voters issued by the mayor and the s ecial council and citizens committees were put pul in evidence with the court V |