OCR Text |
Show THE BILL THAT FAILED. One of the most unfortunate pieces of wrong-headedness of the recent Legislature Legis-lature was the refusal of the House to pass the Eminent Domain bill, so called, which was meant to allow municipalities mu-nicipalities to condemn water by proper prop-er process and on equitable terms. The reasons for the passageg of the bill wero so patent, and tho weakness of tho reasons or rather tho absence of any reasons for the opposition, put the case so strongly in favor of the bill, that It was a puzzle to guess what was the obstruction, The law as it stands allows of tho condemnation of land precisely pre-cisely as tho proposed law would have allowed of the condemnation of water. And yet the House steadily refused to pass tho bill. The result is lhat water remains absolutely a private right not subject to public condemnation, though tho land which it is designed to irrigate irri-gate may be condemned. It is so inconsistent in-consistent a situation that it seemed sure that there must bo some malign Influence at work against the bill. The Tribune was told by one high In civic authority that the Utah Light and Railway Company was tho antagonist In the way, and that defeated the bill. In spite of the denials of officials of the company, the officer who told us the story affirmed the truth of it, and stated stat-ed that he had been approached by an official of the Utah Light and Powei Company personally, precisely as described de-scribed in The Tribune; and after the company official referred to made public pub-lic denial that he had done anything of the kind, our informant reiterated that ho had dono so, and that tho denial simply put It in tho position that ono of the two had lied; it was the word of ono against the word of tho other. And tlterc it rests. The story was that tho light and railway rail-way company was opposing the bill, and was able to hold It up In tho House. Tho company, howeyer, would consent to the passage of the bill If the city would consent "to tho extension of the company's franchise for fifty years, as it asked. Otherwise, It would have the bill killed. The reason for this was stated to bo that the company feared tho city would exercise tho right of condemnation uppn tho water right that the company claimed at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Now, wo neither affirm nor deny this story, yet it Is affirmed by a man In high position, who would almost necessarily neces-sarily know what he was talking about. But, whether true or false, tho fact remains lhat the obstinacy of tho House In refusing, from whatever cause or for whatever reason, to pass the Eminent Domain bill was a wicked blow at this city, and an inconsistency which cannot in tho least be defended. |