Show TRE THE PROTEST unanswered tux discussion ot of the sewerage question by the has brought out oat a vest deal of information which would not have beon been obtained it the cl h we opposed frim the d been permitted to prevail v ail ws that all the taxpayers of no one had to do was to abut their eyes and voting only as to the laterals literals late rals TO go it blind as to the main sewer and the reception and disposition of the sewage some particulars as to the probable intentions of the city council on these points have been brought forth and the plan for emptying the filth of the city into the jordan or the lake has been effectually demolished the present scheme is yet under consideration so its discussion is still pertinent in answer to the protest ot of ellas elias morris and others who give intelligent tell igent and specific reasons for their objections we have some statements that ought to be examined as they are set forth as puncturing the air bubbles blown in opposition very few people of thought will characterize mr morris potent and respectful remarks as air bubbles at any rate they have not yet been punctured but only blown upon and some of them have not beon touched in any war w ahe or by any means the argument that district no one Is in too teo large and the reasons why it should be diminished have not been punctured or even replied to it has not been shown why people within the limits of district no one who do not want sewerage should be compelled to pay for something which they are not likely to use when they do not wish to deprive the property owners of using and paying lor for it in that portion of the district where it is really needed neither has the proposition been touched hed that before citizens as a body shall be taxed lor for the special benefit of a few their permission should be held as necessary and the call for a guaranty that the sum named as the cost ol of the scheme will cover the expenses has not been answered or alluded to indeed when we come to examine the reply to the protest we find that it is not an answer at all to the arguments and propositions ions it contains let us see first we are told that no improvement in pro could be made that all jid did not obtain some benefit from either near or remote that is quite true as a general proposition it all the taxes of tile the were spent without the consent of the majority tor for the particular benefit ot of one part of et town incidental good would come no doubt in some degree tto to every part but it would nov noc be either satisfactory or right and this utterance is but a glittering generality tyll that does not touch an ra 9 tion in the protest let alone puncturing in it we might as well say that no in man an can build a fine house bouse without the community lei either ther near or remote being benefited but that consolation is 18 mighty amigh small to folks compelled to live in a dugout dug out particularly if they are compelled to furnish arnish some seme of the bricks for the fine house hoase for nothing and people in the outer districts forced again bilte eilte heir will to help pay dor an system of sewerage bor or the special cial benefit of a very limited ipe portion of the city from which they cm am never mover derive adv I 1 id I 1 I 1 good wui will not teel feel very well satie satisfied fled with a possible remote good which is about as tangible as an air bubble 91 next an attempt is made to draw a parallel between betwee ft this sewerage scheme and nd its benefits to bat afew with the jordan canal project uw its alleged benefits to some more than others it tys PIS most surprising that a red rejecting acting anand should conceive such a fallacy ff was as not the whole city directly bene sted by that canal did it not increase the water supply for the common good kd the right to the use of city creek water was not confined to dis one doneit I 1 t was held in a very large the city and an increase was absolutely necessary all over town and there has been no water scheme adopted but tor for the direct benefit of the whole in some degree because the isi increase crease in the volume of water means more water bior for the whole city we have not enough now BOW as the dried up orchards test testify ity and as thirsty people with city creek water rights who have to buy water to drink most certainly understand but to compare a scheme from which only a portion of toe city can ever derive direct be benefit neilt with a plan designed and carried out oat tor for the direct good of U is to force a contrast th tha y serves to expose the wrong of th the former more clearly than ever then this tact fact knocks out the fallacious reply with one blow the jor dan canal project was voted on by all the taxpayers if district no one did not receive equal benefits with other part town its property owners bad a voice in the adoption of the plan lu in the sewer scheme the taxes 61 the whole N hole city are to be used lor for the of a small area and the general taxpayers tex are not consulted at all any comparison comp artson or parallel in that and here is another consideration all this attempt to stand up for district no ho one is in opposition to the protests of taxpayers in district no 81 one ne examine it in this light and see how funny it looks poor district no one bow it has bean abused ith it has never had bad its jupt hustues Dues in the past i indeed never had street work of public lighting or police service of 91 any improvements above other parts of town eh has no water service perhaps perhaps Ser haps either running in sects or flooded boded over ever lawns or furnished in pipes or sprinkled over special streets dreadful and since when hat has that district abandoned the use of water for irrigation does any one mean to say that no in lot owner irrigates in district no one the error of the whole attempt at reply to the protest lies in changing the question u estion at issue it is ass assumed dined that the objection isto is to the irregularity of benefit that is not the ground of the protest at all it is not the irregularity of benefit but the utter ut ter absence of direct benefit to taxpayers er who are to be compelled to pay for it that is complained of here Is the language used the proposition is entirely unjust as it compels the great bulk of citizens who will never derive any benefit from sewerage to pay for putting in the mains and for the maintenance of this system r also for the water for flash flushing 11 it is easy to build up an argument against an opponent wh when enyou yeu change entirely the ground of his bis opposition and substitute a proposition of your own for that which he presents presen is Ws As to the water for flushing the quantity named or gallons daily does not include the much greater amount which will be poured through sinks and closets at various times every day and which will be absolutely necessary y to use if service is I 1 established in nearly every house in the sewer district audi and the facts as to the present totally inadequate water for the other parts parte of town have not been met and cannot be disputed the propositions remain that the only part of the city where sewerage can be said to be urgently needed is contained within the three centre that people in the district outside of that part and wao do not need 0 sewerage ewe rage should not be compelled to have it or pay for it that citizens outside the district who can never be benefited by bv this scheme should not be compelled to pay for the main and other expenses vast that will be inevitable and that a scheme schema of such magnitude so far as it affects the general taxpayers should be submitted to their vote these have not been re plied to at all and what has been said in the shape of an attempted puncture does not in any way affect th questions to be considered by the city council |