Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1867-05-30
GFor the Herald.l
Turnpike improvements in Fay
cite County.

EDITOR HERALD Your issue O.
May 10th, contains an article by M.
criticising an article on the above
subject that appeared in your issue
Of the 9th inst, in which he at
tempts to show that the assessment
on the various roads, and especial,
ly on Washington, was just and
equ table, and in strict accordance
with the law on the subject, and foi
the purpose of giving force and
color to his remarks, he assumes
and afiirms that the writer thereof
maintained "that all lots and lands
within two miles of the improve
ment, ought to be assessed for its
construction irrespective of any
benefit derived" Two quotations
from that article will show that M.
was in error on that point. The
first sentence of that article reads as
follows: "The great and vital
point is the equitable adjustment of
the assessment on the lots and lands
to be benefited thereby" Another
statement in the course Of the ar
ticle reads thus: {" 1t follows that
the plain intention of the law isl
that the lands within those limits,
(viz: the two miles mentioned, }
should be taxed for the road pcti-
toned for, according to the benefit
derived from the IMPROVEMENT. )
On that point l might say without
exaggeratlon, that M. has been bark
ing at the wrong tree; for we both
agree that all the lots apARlands
within the prescribed limitlSHat are
benefited, ought to be assessed, and
none others. But 1 deny the right
of the viewers or any one else to
strike an an rpry division line be-
tween any 2 ros within that limit,
so as to ignore ana leave out of the
estimate without a6ual view, one
fourth or one half the territory EN-
braced in the petition, The law is
based upon the theory that the ma
jority shall rule, especially when the
people are to be so heavily taxed, !
and assumes that all land owners
within that limit, ought to be taxed,
according to the benefit they may
derive from the improvement. The I
of dividing the territory |
between any two State or County
roads that ran parallel or in the I
same general direction, was at
tempted to be engrafted into the
law of 1867, and was Intentionally |
struck out, as being upon the
oppressive and impractica-
BILE and calculated to defeat all road |
improvements under the law, and |
the limits of two miles was substi.
tuted as in the law of 1866. And |
whether the surveyor prepare
map showing a division line be-
tween the road sought to be i'm
proved and some other road, or
not; the first viewers on a road
ought to comply with the law, and
point out every lot, or land, within
5he limit of two miles, that in their
opinion will be benefited and ought
to be assessed, without any regard
to any arbitrary division line be-
tween such roads.
The last Legislature rejected that
.heory in the passage of the pres
ent law. I think NJ. has travelled
1ut of his way in parading the
names of the assessors on the diff '
erent roads; we are willing to adj '
nit that they are all honorable men j
If Judgment, but still, men liable to s
TT, according to the presumption '
If the law, even, which provides for t
he correction of their errors, by +
their work to the scruti- +
" of the taxpayers. And when we t
consider that the law is, compare {
lively speaking, a novelty in our I
egislation, and that many of our S
awyers were unprepared last year j
o advance a reliable opinion as to /
= i. : l.