OCR Text |
Show worth at least $20,000, to pa6s Into other bands. Why not tell thes? people that "the city wants to use the water," and see what they will do about It' One third the flow from those two canyons would look pretty good in that new reservoir. If It would be too costly to lay a pipe line to the new- reservoir, here is another suggestion. At the corner of 29tn and Monroe the city owns ten acres, reserved for a city park. It is all under the Strong canyon canal. Why not plow and furrow out to that ten acres and glvo the June grass a good watering? It would be a cheap a" 1 rapid method of finding out wheiner the city had any water rights out there. If they ailow tho city to use the time or one-third of the stream all the time, then tho city has a water right that it can enter In its ledger at not less than $20,000. If they refuse to allow the city to use the water then the city rights will have to be permanently adjusted" adjust-ed" again by another decree from the courts Or another plan Just ask Mr.' Horn and the Irrigation company to each pay the city one dollar as rental for the use of "the water owned by Ogden Og-den City" during the "year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten" and see what, If anything, happens. hap-pens. If they refuse to pay one dollar ask them if they are willing to pay one cent, and carefully note the results. re-sults. If they refuse you can then bue them for the back reut. Before writing the communication of June 11th, I had heard the president presi-dent of the Strons's canyon and Waterfall Irrigation company, speaking speak-ing as a citizen and not as an official of his company, express the fear that the city had lost its rights In the flow from the two canyons. After reading the mayor's report I think so too. I In one of the dally papers appears a brief note as to what the city attorney at-torney had to report regarding tho status ot the suit Invohingthe water rights in Tajlor's ranon. which suit and water rights were inherited from the old Ogden Water Works company of Baker City, Oregon He says, at least the reporter says he says, that the suit is In the hands of a specially appointed attorney and that he "had every confidence that the matter would be attended to with caro and dispatch." As the case has been pending for about three years without being brought to trial I wonder how optimistic opti-mistic the city attorney would have been If It had been six jears since tho suit was Ptarted. The writer of this has confidence In the city attorney's ability to do things. He was the first city attorney to find a loRal method by which Ogden City could buy back the waterworks He ought to ach".ee still further fame by wilting his uaine In the history his-tory of Ogden as the first city attorney at-torney to win a lawsuit for the city lnvohing water rights With two city attorneys on the payroll pay-roll tho need of a special attorney Is certainly not apparent. Respectfully, O. A KENNEDY. For the Chamber of Commerce. Juno 27th, 1910 C01IH! TO THCOUWl A communication from Secretary Kennedy of the Ogden Chamber of Commerce was presented nt the city ?ouncll last evening and was about to have been read by Clerk Allison, when Councilman Flygaro moed that tho matter be laid over nntll another time. Tho motion was unanimously carried and the communication was therefore dropped for the time being. A copy of the paper, however, was furnished this paper and is as follows: fol-lows: To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of Ogden City, Utah: Gentlemen: On June 11th the writer hereof, under the Instructions from the Chamber of Commerce, sent you a communication regarding the city's water rights In Taylor's canyon, can-yon, Strongs and Water fall canyons, and South Fork, which communication communica-tion was presented June 12th In the city council and referred to the mayor and city attonrey. We have since received a letter from the city recorder having attached at-tached thereto a copy of the mayor's report to the council from which It appears that by agreement tho city attorney was to report on South Fork and Taylor'6 canyon and tho mayor was to report concerning the city's water rights in Strong's and Waterfall Water-fall canyons. We are sorry to note that th mayor saw fit In his report to be funny at our expense. We are sorry. (1.) Because It hurts our feelings. 2.) Because It was not a dignified report for our mayor to make. (3 ) Because it does uot put any more wator in that new cement-lined reservoir. Before receiving a copy of the report re-port we had a chance to read It in the mayor's own paper together with Ills own approving editorial comments. com-ments. It la not a dillicult matter to see that the hint is broadly conveyed convey-ed to the Chamber of Commerce not to "Intrude Itself into public affairs," and the suggestion is openly made that before approaching the city officials of-ficials we should first look them up quietly and Informally and coufcr with them unofllclally. I take the liberty In bohalf of the Chamber of Commerce of respectfully declining both the him and the suggestion, sug-gestion, not because, tiiey are coupled with a "lesson on offlciousness," but because wo believo that public business should be transacted openly and above board, and that the clty'a interest often suffer from the failure of citizens to make their wishes and demands known to the council. The "right of petition" is expressly granted In the constitution of the United Stales. It Is reaffirmed In tho constitution of Utah. It Is provided for in tho statutes of Utah and in the Charter of Ogden CUy. Any citizen or association of citizens cit-izens has a right to send in a dozen communications, petitions, suggestions, sugges-tions, complaints, or criticisms, at each and every meeting of the city council. If he, or they, think best, and each communication must, or should be, disposed of on Its own merits, and not made the basis of sarcastic rejoinders re-joinders by officials. If there Is any rlgftt of the citizens that Is more clearly defined by the courts than any other it is the right to know what officials have done, what they are doing, and what they Intend to do In transacting public business. Again. It was long ago settled that public off iclnls must answer the Inquiries In-quiries of citizens, not gradgingly or with sarcastic comment, but freely, cheerfully and with courtesy. In his report the major states that eight years ago the city's rights In Strongs and Waterfall canons were "permanently adjusted ' by "an agreement" agree-ment" which wns "entered Into the form of a decree of tho dlctrlct court," by which decree Mr. T. W. Horn and the Strong company and Water. Fall Irrigation company were to have "free and undisputed right" to use the cKs water, amounting to nearly one-third of the total flow of the two streams, "until such time as the city of Ogden should want to use tin? wator." We already know all that and the purpose of our comnniwaitlon of June llth was clearly staled wiien we said that "there now seems to be a doubt as to whether the city bus auy Interest Inter-est there at all." Eight yoars is a tong tlmo where water rights aro involved. During those olKht years neither Mr. Horn nor tho irrigation company has paid a cent of rent for the use of the water nor have they In any manner publicly recognized the-city's rights or acknowledged that they were lessees of the city s water. Tho Important thing In this matter Is not whothftr tho Chamber of Commerce Com-merce has been In a Rip Van Winkle , Rloep for eight years, hut whether I the city has slept oa lis rights for Gioht jcarb, aud allowed those right, |