Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-03-30


gard to annexing territory to cities and
villages. He thought the county commii |
sloners competent to determine such ques-
tions. Should this bill pass, it would en-
able few individuals to retard the growth
OF all our towns and cities. 1t would en-
aols few persons who own property adj
1acent to towns and cities, whose property
has increased In value In consequence, and
who enjoy all the benefits of such location.
to escape the small modicum of taxation. to
which their property would be subject,
were 1t annexed to the town or city. Mr.
p. considered 1t just that such persons
should be taxed for the benefits they en-
joyed. III
gument conveyed the idea that no persons
had rights to be guarded except those re-
siding In towns and cities. The people In
townships In which cities were located. had
rights as we'll as those in the cities. They
contributed to churches in the cities, and
to the schools therein. To the latter they
could not send their children without pay
Ing tor 1t. When property became more
valuable for city than for farming pur-
poses, it would be laid out in lots, and an
.neXed to the city, with the consent of the
owners. He hoped the bill would pass, be-
cause its aim was to protect the weak.
Mr.. KElFER was for protecting the
weak by the annexation to cities of even
owners, for the sake of the poor men In
the cities, that they might be able to pur-
chase cheap lots for homes for themselves
and families. Mr.. X. referred to the ex-
isting laws on the subject of annexation.
and regarded them as sufficient to guard
the rights Of property owners. He pro-
tested against any legislation that would
enable any one person. or few individuals,
to prevent the spread and growth of our
towns and cities.
Mr.. HALL had examined the bill with
care, and he was satisfied There wers two
sides to the question. There was hardly a
city OrincorpOrated village In the State that
had not more land in its corporate limits
than it needed. The bill had perhaps, inper-
fections, but it was decidedly an improve
ment on the existing law on the subject
He should. therefore, vote for the bill.
Mr.. REX was satisfied that the bill
would be a detriment to our towns and
cities. The power vested, by the exist
ing law, in the county commissioners and
questions in regard to annexation after the
electors OF the corporation have voted In
favor of the annexation, furnished ample
safeguards to the owners of the proposed
territory to be annexed. a.4
Mr.. DOWDNEY said the persons whose
property 1t was proposed to take into the
corporation should have voice in regard
property should be taken in upon the plea
OF necessity. 1t was wrong in principle to
say that property should be taken In with :
out the consent of the owners. IT the cor
poration had vote on this question of an
nexation, the property owners should have
a vote on the question also. 1t was wrong
to take mans property without his con-
sent, and to drive him into litigation for a
remedy.
Mr.. SCRIBNER desired the passage OF
the bill, because he had known instances
where the existing law had wrought great
wrong and injustice upon the owners OF
property adjacent to towns and cities. He
referred to several such instances. The
bill simply proposes to prevent the annex
ing of farming lands to cities, by provid-
ing against the annexation of property,
not laid out in town lots, without the con-
sent of the owner or owners of the same
He had known instances where property
had been annexed, for the mere purpose ol
compelling the owners to share in the city
expenses. 1t was a gross outrage, and
should be regarded as penal offense.
Mr.. JAMISON referred to instances
where annexations had been made for the
sole purpose of taxing the lands for city
purposes, and expressed hope that the
bill would pass.
Mr.. MAY also referred to an instance Of
similar kind, where woodlands were an :
have to share in the burdens of the city
but do not get the benefit of pavements, ol
gas lights, of the fire department., sc. He
was in favor of the bill.
Mr.. LAWRENCE said that the manifest
injusticeof cities taking in more territory
than was needed, for the sole purpose o
taxation for city purposes, was great and
growing evil. He referred to instance;
within his own knowledge OF outrageous
cases of the kind. These were not excep-
tionai cases, but the general rule in cases
of annexation OF farm lands.
Mr.. COREY said, in explanation of the
vote he should give on the passage of the
bill, that while there were features in il
that he could not approve, he was satisfied
that there was too great tendency in our
towns and cities to grow too fast by the
annexation of farm lands, for the purposes
of city taxation.
The bill was passed by the following
vote:
YEAs-Messrs. Berry, Campbell, Carter,
Corey, Dickey, Dowdney, Emmitt, Everett,
Godfrey, Golden. .Griswold, Hall, Hutcheson,
JamisOn, Kenney, Lawrence. Linn, May,
Onderdonk, Scribner, Stambaugh, Tor
rence-22
NAYs-Messrs. Kessler. Potts, Rex, SIM
mons, Winner, Woodworth--6.
On motion of Mr.. HALL, the Senate, at
six o'clock, adjourned to 10 A. NJ. on Mon
day next.