Show r fARMERS DIVIDED Ij 1 ON SMELTER Sill SITf I Many at Plain City Opposed tc to t j oS Having Enl Enlarged ged PI Plant nt I jr If on Utah t h Site I MAKE COUNTER PROPOSAL 4 1 Offer to Subscribe I Funds to Aid jJ in Moving Plant Further 1 t From Froni Farms I l Hop lical Special Service Ogden Feb 7 Ogden's prospects ro of securing the smelter of the Inde 1 pendent Owners' Owners association association- are apparently more doubtful than titan they tho toro ore a month ago The smelter pea peo pie have accepted d tho tim local site tho the c railroads have haw done their share sharo In 1 bringing the smelter to Og Ogden en but the ft farmers wIth their 18 Determined stand f i Ia arh It Is b sId aId b r a by some sonic Virtually the death knell lnell to the thc 4 S siU eltion n I 4 About 50 o 0 S tr farmers half baIr o of them land S I owners ners heM held a mass e tonight In Plain S City me meeting house but took definite action on tl tim I o matter The s at the meeting seemed to be ben S rib about i rt ut c equally divided for and a against n the tho location of ot the proposed propose smelter on tho trio Utah Smelter site L 45 I. I C. C A. A bishop o of the h I ward waid presided and speeches both foi for a and against the tile proposition were made I Th c who spoke th the most Ca c favorably ou on the smelter proposition were verc Thomas rhomas Thom Thom- 1 as England John Moore M 31 It rr Sharp Frank r nl Davis Dals Those Thos who T delivered S opposition speeches were Mr l Hicken looper C C. M M. CIa Clay Dan Wade ade Thomas Budge and antI George Hunt S 1 f f. f to linT Iry 4 S The Tho consensus of oC opinion at the t meeting was as not hostile to the smelter i b by an any means although the thc site wa Wat wasS S j dUJ objected te to b by the opposition The declare that thc they are aie not n adS ad- ad S Vcr VOri c to subscribing to a fund run for the I removal remo al of ot the thc machinery in tho the Utah smelter to a point In the tho neighborhood C of ot f Little Mountain or nearer lIet tho tito edge Of f the lake l I I We e want the smelter in Weber I COUll count t as much as 08 the thc business menS men S o of Ogden do do clo but we Are do nut not want it to our fauns farms said one o of the tho opposition opposition op- op d position speakers after the meeting S are plenty plent of waste lan lands s near the railroads s that could be ed utilized A man at the thc mouth ut of Bear Benr river has offered oft of of- t- t t 00 00 acres un on which to bu d a aS 1 S smelter On Ou Pr Promontory point there thore Is Isan t an fin excellent site sito So I 1 see sec no reason reason wh why a n smelter should bu bt built right u up against t our farms I v. v will ill HI subscribe liberally for or the removal 0 of or the Utah I ik smelter so that the tho mine mIac will not be put to any great Initial expense II but as at long lJ as they cl entertain ho hope hopet et of S erecting their smelter on ou the j site we shall UG light lt them I Jinn In MK I It 1 Is a. a w well l known Kno fact that the tilt n zine me I owners will HI not hot allow themselves to to taU full trite into to n a trap that win will entangle tangle n them I I In law suits n as the they have Jia s so o 0 e expressed th themselves rn The d decided stand stancl in up- up upI I l g 2 position i to the smelters J has I IrU sprung rU up since Ii mass meeting f at t the Weber b I clUb and was wall not expected n when n time the club began egan Its Hs work v for tor or time the smelter for 01 Weber count county t S iI Via petition n t time the location of tl nr nar UH t city cHy Iia Jina been buen sl lJ tt City J oJ S e. e o-f o f macro titan thou I S u reo ut ot nd lt vu hf J d on the th the ll t t. At only twin tUl oCt o ot ut CO GO GOS CO S rt refused to The Hut at t nJ tain a th tins names names ut ot all un l but ut ul one I 1 farin r and und at O Ogden p pall r j I f a all l h e til signed I |