Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1872-03-12
OPINION

cannot regard the special act, Chap 1888 Jaws Of 1906
authorizing Msssrs 3 iyeser to divert the waters OF
Crossed creek from rs natural channel and "a ng
into canal carving IL q their mills sna diSchar
the wStes into Sanders Creek as constitutional en-
acmsnt IL Is true our supreme Court has su-tain,d
WHIST ~ known AS the mill dam law, which authorizes
the builder of a dam on his land 70 food wate
back land not belonging to The owner OF the -four
ing mill, on condition Of paying just compensation
| g. the of the land elaOwn. But the Court
has declared is belief of the unconsttulion ty even
Of this acthey sustain 1t the ground OF an ca
decision by divided Court, and have declared they
would not extend the principle Of This law beyond
letter II be illogical, confess to rfuse to
extend principle But sometimes all courts
PEELED to stop short Of cOnsequen to which par
tic1lar line Of decisions might lead Our Supreme
Court felt Itself compelled TO auth0nzs the taxation q
railroads on their gross earnings not the VA
OF ths road assessed although the Csutt regard
ed this ida of taxattO ON unconstitutional but IN
view o the injury that would r.sIt fr,
uasettng rights, based on the general conviction that
the OF taxation the gross earnings was sane
tIoaed by the Constitution sustained The law decar-
rag al The same time 'hey would not apply ITS priuci
! pie to other cases.
In reference the special act authorizing the en-.
tire diversion OF water course from its natural chan
mel II there is difference in principle the
injury thus done 10 land below he dam that
shuts on tue water, aud the laud above dam
whose land submerged ia consequence OF its cree
ton, gives To the pnucple far wider scope aud ex-
TENT nas thus Ia advance met with tile condemna.
ton M se supreme tribunal Of our state. 60 far as
know, this il the only act ever passed b. egsa
ture gving TO amill owner such right over the
ming water Of tbs country. The principle involved Ia
thus Jaw would render tbs properly of a mill neIs
ell ctetH st The mercy OF iBcOnsiderate pecia
/ legislation. Tue p,ainIiu McCOrd might 20 To TIE
egs and procure the passage of act authotiz
ing him To divert the waters of crooked Creek away
tom tue drienuaHts mil TO mill that he I'd tuit ar
intended TO build, condition OF bis II a6iug com
pensatlou therefor and Tor the purpose of erecting
mill site uuvisled by any natural wafer course
special ac' m lat authorize 40 entrIpri-ing individual
OF a cO'p-rauOn to divert water course & om any
number OF existing mills ana valuable aaC nery pay
ing such compensation MS commissioners gh award
1t has been cOutendsd thst the iegls atute i
| the only tibuaai winch properly juCge of the
uecesssity which ma, justfY the tskIuy OI private
prop ny hom it's owner, aud placing il in condItIon
Il will confer Create bsn' dts he public than
ia tn hands Of private p"r-on This is generally
tue But when Courts clearly thai ,fsons
through whore lands natural -trsam may d. 4, may
spVl, that power TO tue propeliing e m4cLinef II
would amount IN many cases 10 dsslrueoa Of pub IL
neieht, 10 aiiOw one ma owner The monopoly O tbs
enuis stItsni. That cannot be ca led psoc uecess
y which destroys pubic necessities AM uses
| equa.ly great with itself.
Ilis vision OF rsam to supply cities with water
has Ia sOue cases 6-eu tolerated. aud presume The
DAtIonal Congress might ~utnOII5 the sh lDg II ans
navgabie stream. IL this case, do that the
village OF BJscObsl hal any rigut 10 the running
through the detsndauts mill fJt auy puIpose ex-
erpt 50 long as thsy choose To keep up tueir dam.
Should CUuits Proceed apOA the broad ground that
property shcuu be disposed OF to The Create
goOd 10 the greatest possible number, may
ba they would sustain AZ act authorizing the
village Of Bosoobel divert this stream within
ats limits, tor its and a Protection
agSinst hre But Courts would not sustain la
tuoitzing one village IL making compensation. 10
vert stream ttOn another village OF equal size An0
where The courts could judlcously determine tba.
tns public advantage ats.rOyed vas equsl TO IN It
wbieh would be Authorized by the act. Dut the eoA-
nolug OH ct OF The ile,ial ia this ess
advantage VI B9s;obvl-it Is right wholly dependent
The uispos zion of the ceenuants TO keep up
/ dam aud
| am aware OF the language used BY the Supreme
Court earl, case, lea witch the majority OF that
Court sutisiard the mill dam IL IL tIus, init.
/ mated, that selfish anu churlsh individual NAV
'iaud 10 the wa OF private esierprEs projected BY
lu5ic -piritea cgtIzens, whsn such improve
o. OF Vital Importance 10 . large community, even
h~fe the sutbors Of such enter prize willing
ray sucn Shlrish owner for than bis
/ ape But ali such attempts pxtortion and hat il
called back maIiug, are generally oiied by the hon
esly aud intelligence Of jury, which lmts the dam
Ages the actual injury not what viii satisfy any
| e1h Ibitant claims OF Sintd