Show THE LATE CITY COUNCIL ouia liberal morn aug contemporary takes great delight in assailing the latfy ity council counci 19 that the truth to is no obstacle in its way is too well known to need any demonstration on our part but it would seem that common prudence would prevent its frequent assertions contradicted by the public records this morning it consumes a large amount of editorial space on the basis of the error that the late city Coun council ciP granted to the salt bait lake railway company 1 a new char ter permitting it to esteb establish a double track street railway over all the principal streets of the city and connecting with all the depots this it says was fought by the liberals in the council and its iniquities fully pointed out but all amendments offered were sullenly and unanimously voted down by the majority it then goes on to talk of the fraud of it and the gift to favorites favorit esl and much more similar nonsense th the facts th atthe late city council ld id nothing of the kind and that the franchise under which the salt lake city railroad company claims the right to operate on first east street to ia fifteen years old do not weigh a feather in the party blind eyes of the reckless 2 abune aune the opportunity to berate the late city counell deal out a little very doubtful taffy to the cLi liberal berall members was enough for the fe fi cribe and so he turned loose but he also says that the railway company cc claim mcclaim that the late city council granted to it this new charter anyone who has read the aeo accounts of the controversy of the past two or three days knows that the company kave have made no such claim but avow that they are proceeding under their old franchise I 1 Q another part of the same paper the revised ordinances of the city are held up to animadversion and ridicule on the alleged ground that while they prescribe that owners of public buildings must provide means of escape from fire under the direction of the inspector of public buildings yet there is no clause fixing a penalty for the violation of any of these sect sections iolas 11 II it then cites cite a fragment of section 30 80 chapter 20 of the revised ordinances and r repeats the above assertion commiserating with the sue successor cessor of the pros out eat inspector and calet calling ng for a revision which it says in black capitals is WANTED AT ONCE now let us see how much truth there is in its assertions and how much cause there is for its sensational call section 7 of chapter 19 says in regard to the failure of any owner or agent to act u eider brider the notification of the inspector of buildings that he be shall on conviction thereof be fined not more than one hundred dol dollars larrs and adds and in like manner any owner or agent of any building or say architect or contractor employed in or about a building who shall violate any provision of this chapter or of chapter 29 of this ordinance where no other pen alty to is qa provided ded shall upon convie tion be fined not more than a hundred dollars it is very easy to find and fault but not always so easy to be accurate if the hasty person iv who ho was so eager to find fault with the late city council Counci ln had only examined the first chapter of the abe revised ordinances angeii which he wants revised but seems to know nothing about he would have found a penalty provided covering all ordinances pres ent or future and providing a penalty for their violation when no other is specialty specially prescribed the late city council performed a great amount of labor in a conscientious and able manner if the present city council shall prove to be e half as good as the old the NEWS will not imitate its liberty contemporary in carping and exaggerated objections and certainly abt in manufacturing grievances which have no substantial existence |