OCR Text |
Show ANOTHER ANGLE TO CITY'S SUIT j Despite the fact that 90 per cent of the citizens assembled at a mass meeting held I here Monday, July 2, favored a resolution asking- the city council to discontinue the city's suit against the Provo-Springville Holding Company and the Columbia Steel Corporation, three members of the council voted to ignore the resolution ami continue the suit, while two voted in favor of the resolution, at the last meeting of (he council held last Thursday Thurs-day evening. Those voting against the resolution which asked that the suit be discontinued were J. L. Phillips, William Whitehead and Theron Hall. Councilmen John 11. Anderson and Glenn Dallin voted in favor of the resolution. Mayor George A. Anderson did not vote, but is known to favor the suit. As has been stated, the principal argument of those in favor of prosecuting the case, is that the act of the former city council in transfering the land and water in question is unconstitutional, and upon this theory Mayor Anderson declares that he is under op.th to sustain the constitution of the state of Utah and the constitution of the United States. He takes the position that the former city council had no right to deed the land and ;icr in question to any one, and that he would be violating his oath of office if he were to fail to protect the city against such alleged illegal transfer. Of course, the mayor and his colleagues who favor the suit, Messrs. Phillips, Hall and Whitehead, have not indicated what their position will be with regard to land and water the city sold to private interests long before their was any though of this land being deeded over to the Holding company. The Mendenhall brothers, Springville-Maple-ton Sugar company, and other private interests purchased large tracts of city-owned land, and nothing was said about those transactions being unconstitutional. i If the transfer in question is declared unconstitutional, certainly then the transfers made to private individuals in years past must be declared void and set aside, and this land and water, too, must revert back to the city. f We can see no end of trouble and expense if the present city council continues to pursue its course in prosecuting this case. 1 Moreover, there is aboslutely nothing to be gained by such action. The city has the use of its land and water under the present agreements. The farmers are not deprived de-prived of their primary right to water, and the city is greatly benefited by the coming of the steel plant and its subsidiary plants. Once more we appeal to those councilmen who seem bent on prcser u'l.ig this action, to abide by the wishes of the majority of the people they are serving, and discontinue this suit, which will involve untold expense and annoyance te many landowners and citizens citi-zens generally if it is continued. |