| Show LITIGATION 1 It Is i to t bo hoped that the tho cRy city au will act neL upon u on tho nd vice Icu ot of City Attorney Nye aye and lal lalo o immediate stops slops top In In reference to the rights of ot tho the city to the tho use tIMe o and control of ot the waters In the river hold holdby holdby by tile the city for tor many yearn nn which to lomu extent been Invaded by t tilt thet Electrical r Company It is ha most Important f mt at the tho water hall be bo taken out at tit a n higher r level lovel than tit Itt Present so ao tu tho tim that I huva havo been lIon for lor the benefit ot Qt the tite city ma mu be effected In In good i time ilme Them ought to bo IJo no flO delay in III commencing this thus work and it should b hI pushed to completion as 1111 rapidly an ni n po IIO It t ia lit h evident from the recommendation than tion of ot the City Attorney nod also alsofrom alsoS S from the tha petition complaint Which will soon bo filed med In court that tho the notion n entertained by omo a people that tho the city lion haw not been boen cen injured d or ur its Ita rights righta Jeopardized by bythe bytho bythe the tho decisions that have been rendered In favor of ot the th Electrical rower Power com corn company I pany Is 16 not endorsed by tho the city au nu authorities nor by the attorneys attorney engaged in defending those thonon rights III In n considering tho hole Whole matter It should bo be clear to tl those thosa who InveRt gate nto It H that there U hI ll a great difference between taking water for tor mechanical purposes out ut ot of a II stream or o natural source BOUrO ot supply and returning It to tl that stream In quantity find quality and water from Irom a constructed canal I belonging to a n pub public lie lic corporation using It for tor private pur POUCH and returning It Into that canal conal Also Aleo that It seems n a strange proposition than tion to declare that the tho private company was entitled to th be use USO ot of waters from that ranal canal during the timo when n a suit Mitt was Vas pending for tho thio acquisition of ot that right tIght under tha ho law Jaw of eminent domain The Tho dissenting opinion or fir orthus j thus 1 In tho ho pending suit referred l to the tha Salt Bait like Jake I Water and Power Company does not seek to acquire the tho right light to divert from tho the houd of at tile the Halt Lake Lako City canal thin tho water WILIer as aforesaid appropriated by the city elty but bul Wrongfully claims that it has already acquired that tight right under Its said no tico at appropriation of tho the same and only seeks e to acquire the tha right to 0 die dis discharge charge Into tho the canal ono one and miles befall US Iti water 1 which It Jt claims It line has the I right to divert under notices s of or appropriation which ore are Invalid so 80 far us as they relate to the prior vested rights of ut the city The petition to bo be entered for lor a n construction ot of tho the original decree In Inthis this thle cause DUSO for tor Instructions thereon to the commissioner appointed by the tho rout court and for or a 0 supplemental decree modifying the die former decision Is ot of o very eny vet great Teat Importance to the tho city and ando to o nil all parties concerned In this litigation lion tion dissatisfaction felt Is wide vIdo widespread spread anil anU It Is of no u ui i to intimate that th the water rights lave not nut noti i been teen jeopardized for tor the contention will wilt go 80 on until those rights are arc vindicated Meanwhile the tho work of ot taking tho tha th wa va water 1 tel ter or qi at nt a 11 higher level than at nt present not no bo be delayed ed or 01 retarded |
