Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1867-04-11
TURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTS.

any bar to the private or public dis.
cussion Of the practical bearing OF
application of any general law,
In your issue of the 2Sth OF
March, | aimed to call attention to
the proper application Of Turnpike
law in our county, and show that
some Of our Surveyors and first
| Viewers had failed to comply with
the law by neglecting to make list
of all the lots and lands within two
miles, that in their opinion were
benefited and ought to b. assessed
The Surveyor on the Columbus and
Mount Sterling Roads drew up
maps, showing the lands for two
miles on each side of those roads,
50 IS to enable the Viewers to make
a list Of all the lands within that
limit which were benefited, and
ought to be assessed; that inclu-
ded semi-circle Of two miles radi-
us from the terminus Of the Corpo-
ratiSn Of Washington, and without
striking a dividing line between it
and any other road. The lands on
those roads within those limits that
in their opinion were benefited,
were 50 reported, and listed. ia
cob Creamer was Surveyor on that
road and drew up the maps for the
Viewers. The Assessors on the
same roads apportioned the tax on
the lands so reported by the first
! Viewers, and returned their list to
the Auditor, including all that were
reported by the Viewers.
Judge Mclean and other citizens
Of Washington, having examined
the assessment on the Columbus
Road had by the Viewers, objected
to it as taxing his lands and prop
erty too heavy; it was then eX-
planned to him that the property of
Washington and vicinity was as
sesscd in equal proportion with 9th
cr property on the road, but that
inasmuch as other roads were eX-
pected to be pctitOned for con
yerging to Washington, that the tax
would have to be cquali1ed between
them. In the meantime some one
broachcd the question as to what
should be done in regard to the va
rious roads where the limits of two
miles overlap each other The
question was canvassed by the AS
SCISSORS and Board of Commission
crs with Il view of making some
equitable arrangement of the tax on
all the roads-the ASSESSORS insist
ing that the County Commits
sioncrs should issue some mstruc-
ton as to their manner Of making
the assessment. The County Com
missioners in reply said that they
could give them no authoritative
instructions, and that it would be
merely advisory, anything they
might say; and that the Assessors
would have to act TO the best of
their Judgment in making the op-
portionmcnt.
After considerable discussion of
the subject, DR., Nv. II, Jones init
mated that if they could not agree
on any other plan, they might, per
haps, divide the land between the
roads; bat Of the propriety of that,
they must be the Judges; that if
they cut Off n portion Of the terrific
ry, the balance on that part of the
road must pay heavier tax IN pro
portion to make up for the amount
cut of, They adopted the first part
Of the suggestion, but neglected the
latter; so that now the portion OF .
territory near the convcrgcnce OF
the roads pays no more tax per :
acre than other lands similarly sit
uatad ON the road, and several g,
miles Off; especially the town prop /,
crty has been most cgrcgiously neg
lCtltW, ~ IilUb lllt UlAVulb VI NlN .
paddy Washington for the Colum
bus Road is not equal to the tax
paid by TIE owner Of 600 acrcs Of
land along the road,
Washington pays l,l05 70, on
a duplicate valuation Of Real Es
tate S2l2, $50 ON last general assess
ment, being less than half per cent.
on the dollar paid by Washington
for the Columbus Road, while the
owner Of GOO acres of land along
the road pays eight per cent on his
valuation as II stands on the dupli- ,
cate, aud thereby pays more tax
than all of Washington. Dou't