OCR Text |
Show ' walk on the viaduct. (Signed) H. E. Pccry, J. B. Dana, Commit-' ' tec; J. H. DeVine, City Attorney.' Evidently the last administration made a big mistake in saddling i upon the city an obligation of that kind, as the repairing and guarding guard-ing of the destructible and inflammable part of the bridge across the j railroad yards will prove to bo a heavy expense. Furthermore, the city blundered in allowing the railroads to ! block Twenty-fourth street, put that street to their use and then 1 obtain from the city an agreement to maintain and protect the expensive part of a structure designed to forever givo to the railroads the right to appropriate to their exclusive purposes the occupied : street. We do not blame the railroads for asking and obtaining our : streets and then talking the city into maintaining structures which will free those streets from all other traffic except that of the rail- j roads. The good book says, "Ask and ye shall receive." If the rail- ; roads had asked for and received the city treasury, there would have -been no one to reprimand other than the city administration, and that is exactly where the blame now lies. The railroads, no doubt, asked for much, expecting to comprom- j ise for little, but they received all they a:ked for, much to their surprise sur-prise and elatemcnt. Now the city is about to suffer for the prodigality prodigal-ity of those who seemingly had no thought as to future responsibility and simply sought to please the big corporations, while allowing the future to take care of itself. As with the blundering in placing the sewer on Twenty-fourth . street, at the shallow depth of seven feet instead of the required nine j feet, the burden of the mistake in this instance falls on the shoulders ! of those in control of city affairs who had nothing to do with fastening fasten-ing the obligation upon the city. "The sins of the parents are inflicted upon the children even unto the seventh genration." The sins of a city administration often remain to plague a community even beyond that time. We knew a man who built a house and made a lawn in the cen- i ter of a street. He maintained that if big corporations were entitled to occupy the streets, he should be allow the same privilege. His claim was so unique and his gall so admirable, that his right was ; unquestioned for several years. Finally, discovering that a supremely ; bold front and an unlimited demand often won, the fellow requested request-ed the council to keep his house and lawn in repair, in return for which he would allow pedestrians to pass over his lawn. And again the man's amazing nerve served him to good purpose, as the city granted the demand. Years after the house in the street was pointed out as a monu- ; mcnt to one man's gall and a concrete example of a city administration's administra-tion's stupidity. People came from miles around to see the house in the street and listen to the story of how it was built. THE MAN WHO BUILT IN THE STREET. The mayor, as head of the city administration, having been called upon by the railroad officials to protect and keep in repair the wooden part of the viaduct over the railroad yards, brought th subject of the upkeep of the structure to the attention of the city council, as he labored under the idea that the city was not responsible respon-sible for the maintenance of the viaduct. To hi3 surprise, he received re-ceived the following response: "Mr. President and City Council, Ogden City, Utah, Gentlemen: We, your committee on laws, together with the City Attorney, to whom was referred the communication of William Glasmann, Mayor, to your Honorable Body, and the communication of T. F. Rowlands, superintendent of the Southern Pacific company, addressed to the Mayor and Ogden City, respectfully report, that we have made an investigation of the same and find that Twenty-fourth street was closed by virtue of an ordinance, passed on the 22nd day of December, Decem-ber, 1907, and which was approved by the Mayor of Ogden City on the 31st day of December, 1907, a copy of which is found at page 534 of the Revised Ordinances of Ogden City, 1910, to which reference refer-ence is hereby made, and particularly to that portion numbered Section Sec-tion 2, which reads as follows: " 'And be it further ordained that when the said viaduct via-duct has been completed, in acordance with the said plans, and suitable and sufficient to accommodate the public travel over and along said street, the same shall be deliverd to and accepted by the said city, and thereafter the said sidewalk and roadway over said viaduct shall be maintained by said city, and the structural or supporting portion thereof shall be maintained by the grantee, their successors and assigns. ,: ' "In terms, this ordinance is a contract between Ogden City on the one hand, and the grantees, named therein, on the other. There seems to have been a mutual agreement between the parties thereto, there-to, based upon some consideration, to-wit: The maintenance of a portion of said roadway by the grantees, and the maintenance of another portion thereof by the City, both of which would innure (as would appear from said ordinance, the officers of Ogden City then believed) to the benefit of both of the parties to said franchise. ''I have no doubt that, had the City, at the time this franchise was granted, insisted upon its rights in the matter, or what it was believed to be, then this entire structure, including the surface, and sidewalk thereon, should and would have been maintained by the grantees named in the franchise hereinbefore referred to, but, in the light of the specific contract to the contrary, we regret to say ihat, in our opinion, it now becomes the duty of the city to carry out its portion of the terms of the ordinance, or contract, one of which is to maintain and keep in repair the surface of the roadway and side- |