Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1867-05-16

gaOle IfOm ltS llOuIu us ldT up III
GAINESVILLE, and has a public road on
each side, running nearly parallel to
the river Suppose petition was
presented to the Commissioners OF
Washington county for the i'm
proyement Of the road on the East
side Of that river lying within said
county, and viewers are appointed
to view it and report the lots and
lands which would be benefited
thereby and oUght to be assessed" "
do "all who are competent to give
an opinion on the subject" admit
that all the lands lying on the West
side of that river within two miles
of that Improvement, ought to be
assessed for that improvement?
The law contemplates no such
abSardity. Its provisions upon
that subject, are, that the viewers
shall make a report, showing,
(among other things) "the lots and
lands which will be benefited there
by and ought to be assessed for the
Improvement Of the same" pro-
vided that no lands shall he assess
ed which do not lie within two miles
ofsaid contemplated Improvement"
The first thing the viewers must
do in the performance of their
duty under these provisions of the
law, after having ascertained the
Tine of the proposed improvement,
is to determine the limits within
which they are to act, to-wit two
miles in every direction within the
county, from the line Of the road as
established by them,
Second. The exercise of their
Judgment as to what lands and lots
within these limits will be benefit
ed and ought to be assessed.
AS to the first, there seems to be
no diversity of opinion.
AS to the second, it is claimed |
that the viewers have no power to
exercise their Judgment as to what
'lots and land will be benefited and
ought to be assessed but must re-
port all lots and lands within the
,wo miles for assessment, whether
hey are benefited or not
lit is admitted that the viewers
ire to bring into exercise their iudg-
nent at all, itmust be in relation to
ONE matter requiring Judgment
f all lots and lands are to be re- !
ported for assessment. The sur
.eyor or engineer is the proper per-
on to make that report, for he and
e only can determine that matter,
n which case the labor Of the view {
rs would cease as soon as the line {
fHe improvement ocas establish q
d. l
But the law rquires the viewers to 4
laIlc that report They are sworn ,
0 perform that duty, to-wit re
'ort the lots and lands that will be
by the improvement and l
Ught TO be assessed for Tie eE- '
'eaSe Of the same. But how can
hey make such areport, under oath d
f alb the lots and lands that lie /
'ithin the two miles, when in their I
pinion some lands within the two c
lilies are not beRefted and oaght !
0t to be assessed ? u
The only reasonable construction u
Iat can, in my opinion, (for | am o
OF one Of the "all") be X
1t upon that provision of the law, /
that the viewers must exercise
cir judgment, and by it, determine
hat lots and lands within the two
lies will be benefited and ought to n
assessed. Perhaps the Commis- n
oners have the power and think .,
ey have when they order the i'm Il
'ovement to be made, to say what h
nds shah be assessed and thus en- f.
ace lands not in the report but h.
thin the two miles, or do both, a,
Tie also compares the assessment fl
til the duplicate valuation Of the a,
al estate in Washington and the IA,
untry This is unfair ard does 70
eat injustice to the assessors.-
ne duplicate valuation Of property h,
s nothing to do with the appor- h,
,nment of the expense Of the inn CO
ovement, either in town or coun- ~
Y. 1t is not to be looked to or in W
y way considered by the asses No
rs. The law makes their duty a
lin upon that subject, and cannot Ms
misunderstood, oh
1t provides that the assessors w,
hall, upon actual view of the n
nmiscs, apportion the estimated in
pense Of said Improvement upon n,
, lands embraced in the ORDER (of
, Commissioners) according to th
, benefit which each piece shall tb
rive thcrclrom X and od
making said apportionment they ro
all take into consideration any en-
neflt which will accrue to any ~,
ID or lands by reason of NJ
ninago resulting from the making fl,
said improvement" th,
Hence the assessors arc to look ho
ly to the benefit to be derived, not ric %
the "dapiicatc ralaaiioa' orany ~
her
The assessment Of the lands on
c Columbus road will average less 81
an per cent. of their actual val ,,,' wv
, Git will not exceed ~ per cent. Sv
anyroad ordered to bo improved) 'o'
d was made according to benefit,
Il not valuation, Hence some to
IDS are taxed as low as / of one kn
+ cent, and as hioh as 3 per cent III