The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1851-06-13
WHOLE NO. 5s2.
EQUALITY In THE NEW CONSTI.
TUITION

The Ohio Times (free soil) thus states
one Of the points in controversy between
the Democratic and whig parties, and
illustrates the argument in plain and
striking terms. Every man in The State,
but wbig partisan, will unite with tho
Times in saying ''it is but justice that
rail road companies should pay fair
compensation for the land they use, just
rs they do for the lumber and iron wLic h
they employ in tho consuuction Of
roads,"
"Another point OF controversy is that
in reference 10 right of way. There is
a provision that land shall not be taken
upon which to conshucr iail roads, &C.,
untess the owner be fully compensated
for the land so taken and this without
any reference to the benefit which may
resultto him from the road. Those who
oppose this provision, claim that The fair
way would be 10 consider both the benefit
and the injury, and if The latter should
be greater than The former, then allow
the owner Of the land the difference. II
Is insisted that any other course will tend
to discourage Improvements Of this char
acter. Il every man is TO be fully com
pensated for damages, over and above all
benefits, the cost ofthe right Of way, il is
claimed, will be so great as to put stop
TO the construction ofroads.
T This objection is met by the following
reasoning: If benefits must be taken into
The account and Offset against injuries,
there will be one class Of people who can
never be advansaged by these public inn
provements; and that class will be COM
posed af those upon whose premises
these improvements sre built. True they
will lose nothing, aud il is said, if they
lose nothing, they need not care how
much their neighbours gain. But this is
not fair conclusion. Public improve
menis should benefit the mhole people.
Suppose that the construction of any
particular railroad should have The effect
of increasing the value Of property on
each side oft, twenty per cent, would il
not be exceedingly unfair that the pro-
perty of individuals through whose pre-
misses il might pass, should NOT be enhan-
ced in value one single cent? And it
cannot be if injuries and benefits are
balanced against each other.
To illustrate still far,her--suppose the
road passes through the land Of A-and
that in one sense il increases the value
of his properly bnt in another, it Injuries
him an equal amount; now if these be
Offsets against each other, A will be left
just where the road found him-neither
richer nor poorer. B and G live Just off
the road. Their property isincreased in
value just as much as AS was, but as the
road don't touch their land, they are in
jured none al all. Hence The road has
enriched each, Of them one thousand
dollars. Now is this fair? Under the
provision contained in the New Constlt,i
llon this Partially cannot take place.
II A should be injured to the amount of
one thousand dollars, that sum would by
paid to him, then on the score Of benefits,
he would occupy an equal footing with
his neighbors, B and G. In short, il is but
justice that railroad companies should pay
iai1 compensation for the land they use,
just as they do for the lumber and iron
which they employ in the construction
Of roads. %