Show regarding Rea arding rich county boundary line the following letter was received yesterday I 1 from representative J E johnson explaining the long drawn out d dispute over boundary line between rich and summit counties which will prove informative and interesting to our readers dear mr air I 1 beg to acknowledge snarled marked copy of the record of the dinst and appreciate it very much in order that tile the people may know something about the boundary line dispute between summit county and rich county I 1 give ghe you a short summary of the same from wasatch Wasat cli station on oil the U P railroad all road to the wyoming state line Is a approximately five and one halt half miles ot of double track of the U P R R tills this Is a very valuable asset to summit county and with the exception of a small piece near wasatch station Is in the south summit school district this school district takes in all of woodland francis names kamas marion oakley and pace and it if i it were not for the railroad fhe south summit school district would not be able j to operate tor for thirty six weeks in the year as the taxes would be prohibitive is as it is now they operate their schools but thirty five weeks during the year the valuation ot of the territory that rich county has tried to take irom from summit county Is approximately 00 and the taxes amount to about per year the union pacific railroad was built through summit country during the years 1867 IS 67 68 and prior to that time the disputed territory was in summit county in the year of 1872 the northeasterly north easterly and the north side ot of the union pacific railroad was made tile the boundary line between the two counties in 1914 the union pacific railroad was assessed in rich county by the state er tuition board summit county took exception to this ruling the state blaid of equalization was convinced that they acro ere wrong and the railroad was assessed I 1 in summit county this was amr aad l ed by the supreme court I 1 in ill 1917 the state legislature passed a law giving to rich county the territory in dispute summit county brought an action in tle me district court against rich county and rich county wl was restrained front from collection of the taxes or to a exercise arcise jurisdiction over the disputed deputed territory tex A demurrer to the complaint was aas filed by rich county the demurrer was i i district court 1 summit count county Y appealed the case to the supreme court which reversed the district court and held that the complaint 1 of summit county was good food and I 1 that the act as passed by the legislature 1 ot of 1317 1917 was unconstitutional end vold void this case case was a question of law I 1 later L at er on it the case was tried upon the facts maps were produced and wit witnesses te testified stifled the court after hearing bearing al ot of the evidence found that the disputed 1 territory ns As in summit county and also i held that the net act of 1917 was unconstitutional tut ional and vold void the writer was one of the attorneys tor for summit county at this trial the supreme court upheld the decision of the district court I 1 in 1929 mr air representative from rich county introduced house bill no 69 89 on march 9 1929 this bill was passed in the house with thirty five voting in favor of the same twelve votes were cast against it seven were absent gild and not voting toting and one was excused the senate struck the enacting clause the same year during the early part of the 1932 sea bee 4 slon 1 an mr of rich county latroa 0 deuced u cad house bill no 10 cowing covering t the he same matter and on february of this year the bill was reed red for final par past 4 sage age after two days of hard bard lighting fighting the bill on the floor ot of the house ot of representatives it was defeated the vote was as folio follows ws in favor of rich county ea fourteen in favor of summit county i thirty three eight absent on the ot of february the motion to reconsider consider re H B no 10 was lost with nin nineteen ete an in favor of th the a motion and thirty six against the motion it required five weeks ot of hard work by the writer by the commissioners of sum nut county the board of education ot of b south and north summit districts and I 1 by other people of summit county who believed in backing up their represents a tive in the legislature 1 I defeating 11 B no ito 10 means to sum mit county and to north and south 1 summit school districts at least IT w per year in taxes Z in article XI section 1 of the constitution ution of utah it reads as follows the several counties of the territory of utah existing at the time of the adap tion of this constitution sire hereby ret cognized as legal subdivisions sub divisions of cf this state and the precincts and the school districts now existing in raid counties adall as legal subdivisions sub divisions thereof iud and they shall 8 so continue until changed by law in pursuance of this article section 3 of the same article reads as follows changing county lines no if territory shall be stricken from any coun ty unless a majority of the voters living y in such territory as well as of 0 the th county to which it Is to be annexed shall vote and then only under such conditions as may be prescribed by general law notwithstanding the law Is plain as to how bound boundary arv lines may mav be changed summit county Is called pon every two years to undergo considerable considerable expenses in appearing before committees ard and also j to bring witnesses up to the present legislature summit 9 county has not received favorable consideration As to any futta legislative le action no on can ray cay what t they e y will d dv bilt it is to be hord hor d that is con lc ic ended TIOW now and forever yours very truly J E JOHNSON |