Show MAYORS MAYOR 16 LIGHTING VETO the of mayor mayer G glendin lend in aings veto message mee aage given in today 06 NEWS might easily subject his big honor to scathing criticism for its ito reckless reck leee disregard of the public weal and ol of the ordinary courtesies of official ciRl communication but for pity excited hythe by the influenced InflUence a known to control hence it to la sufficient to note that the city council entered into a COD coa tract with the pioneer electric company to furnish street lights to the city tor for three years at the price of 6 per deir month each lamp for RD an all night der bervice vice that the mayora veto would prevent this favorable oon tract but that bat we opine the ma i 1 rity of the city council coun ell nave superior eu good judgment and interest in the elcya coin comfort rort and eon con veDI vediodus ODOS to that displayed die played to in the document filed with the city recorder last evening and to come before khe be council at eee SeDI eion por for the be sake aake of ane dignity that should attach to the mayor office rather than toi for auy real merli merit which auy any of the objections 0 intall wey they will be treated as if presented in ID kooij faith the first as to the omission omi ealon of a clause to enable the city to renew for throe three or six eix years u tenable in requiring that is ia the legal jeral power in the corporation heing restricted to three year desir oos tracts with such a provision a contractor buiu 0 aid legally refuse at the end of three yeura years to allow the option tot lor tue reason that the extension to ie invalid inva liu while it we the light and city wished to be oon contracts tract the clause olavae Is unnecessary it the city wants wante it however there to li no do doubt that mat the or company would graugard grant grau gand and abide by snob an agrestu ent visas IBO it already has baa shown good faith with the people in Us if low bid when there here were no competitors competitor objection number two complaint complains that abe be contract does doea do not prohibit sub gu letting blotting snob an inhibition would be unreasonable and top or tt might as well try 0 to o prevent the he contractor from frem engaging certain em bloyst or any aay mute mure than a certain number the city allysa business 1 14 to te got get a good electric gleet tio light service at a given figure it Is has ha nothing to do with the dewi detail ot of the contractor private attain sa to who la Is employed or whether the electricity te be generated by water or at team learn power newer the contract provide tot all the be 0 of at a rood good light jervice ana the means to enforce tc its provisions provi ilena As A to me item of the bamm jamm jam pa the contract am provide tat the city can condemn them a as vi ceable should hould they become ao soo notwithstanding what the mayor ay on OB the NOW 0 of o in tur tuis objection there to inserted sia aa abusive reference to the salt brit lake and ogden ow gae and electric int company which la JS wholly out or of place ainoa bat company to ia not dot in ilk the contract at all this la fig evidently done tor to work on oa the prejudices of the people because of that action io fry asking aebig higher drives a little over a v er ago but his honor bonor does oot not tell what city official induced that thag company to t attempt the increase anich attempt would have bava been beem sue eue it the council and not dot the mayor bal not stood alood up ap tor or tile the people i objection number three that a city inspector or engineer should bould settle any difference abat might arise anae la Is an exceedingly dangerous dge rou one to tae city tile tae bayord suggestion id ia that the judgment ot of emu inspector or eni oer neer should bould be conclusive upon apon uoti hartlee bartles part lee les 2 that would be an agreement t ti the city abu noil ebythe by be judgment of an aa inferior off ter jaad and would oe be unlawful as aa well as absurd nd na sensible city councilman would make a or of himself lo in that bat form the council la 19 perfectly able to deal directly with toe can tractor trac to to lo enforcing compliance with in n agreement as ae well as ae in fixing tile the ternes thereof AJ aa to the be suggestions in that paragraph of the mayors message meae agett 19 la Is well to recall that in ID the aunte sot draft drafted ec by the city attorney tot lot the ut utah ah power company which the mayor mayev favored there ade no bund boud there was no forfeiture ein uise the street oar car company waa wee given en arefes enoe over the city there was waa no pro vision for arbit arbilla falon ion no iio re vacation clat olabie bie but bul an awre agreement ement by phiou the city cl ly was to pay a year leht ble more than the pioneer aou tract requires in the last named oautry oo abet no wever there are all the penalties and provisions pruvia iona necessary to its itro etite enforcement rendering a revocation clause unnecessary the fourth objection to i pointed poin tedi t to 10 an alleged unlawful combination if ar 1 it is i u unlawful the ekow Stati ate IWU p vides for dealing with it and the cowd not nol be 1 1 bere tur it if it 11 la not unlawful the oiin could not prevent lt it for or it has ha no bias ba 1 i iness with the light kompany oom pany radars upside of its ita immediate dealings dealing bialk KB what the he statute antho rises A goa eon not at for of lighting scald not lot loter fera the mayor amile that J the contract ilk ia proposed to be b given to 90 a pool which ha hos terms erma an 16 unlawful J that there Is LO such eh proposition and that in his sweption ion there thereon aft oft h mayor dof does not speak the be truth troth 1 la public knowledge nance hence the effort is 1 deceive the public will fall v one more itolo to the he reference oe to In oreate in we the oot of private 4 how that to Is affect d by cheap pa b bui I 1 lighting to not nude madr to appear I 1 tho sor imputation in we the veto to dishonest dia hont tot the be pioneer com company fran noali tra piare abe tb maximum limit 0 wat abat company oan can charge for private 1 lighting a ai lose IBM than the prices prica that now prevail and the be olty city ban baa its if dafft met aber sovereign power to exercise ferolie xe rolie the statute should bould any cona kompany pany charge an excessive figure t taken altogether the veto swage so expressions about protecting he fig go are so 0 o huou hypocrisy tais akolt in connection with the contingent land fond transactions the veto of the contract which would draw about excess from the city treasury for the extra die triot ariot propos proposed eds the favored extra ra contract already referred to and others that might be named toe the city council should ties rise to the present emergency and settle this whole business at once by the pro bounced moun ced unanimity of all members of that ahat body worthy of the public trust reposed la in them there has bae been no edion of the present council that thai has called for such special interest of t the be people in the of each member as ae that whist walca la 18 to be hold held this evening |