The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-03-17

EDS. JEFF: view of the fact that
the pike question is assuming a definite
shape, at least in Findlay township, and
the Importance and great benefit that
good public highways are to a commun-
ity, and the bitter opposition that this
movement is receiving from certain
quarters, and especially from the able
pen of Mr. Brown, the champion of the
opponents of these improvements l deem
it my duty, in order to defend this pro
greSsioe measure, mot necessarily sag
gressice'O to say word more.
Mr. Brown is out with another three
fourths column article, harping upon the
same string and reiterating his pet
theory of ''equal justice to ALL" That is
a good principle, and long to see the
day when the practical part of it may
be demonstrated. But if Mr.. b. had
given argument instead Of questions,
theory and criticism, his efforts might
have been Of some service to his cause.
He quotes me, then proceeds to state
case in the form of question, and asks,
'If the erection of fine structures upon
lots adjoining mine will enhance the
value of my lot, am | to contribute
equally with the owners of these a6join-
ing lots in the erection of these struct-
ures?" This it seems to me, is not per-
tinent TO the subject, as it is not
parallel case at all, and il is therefore alb
surd to make the comparison.
It isinferred from what Mr. B. assum-
ed in his first article that he is utterly op-
posed to everything that has the leastap.
pearance of e!ftntereSt; that his whole
being is engaged in promoting the pub.
lie good, selfGggrandizement being
clear out of the question. After having
erected his man of straw in the shape of
the above question, he gravely pro-
ceeds to denolish him in the following
triumphant style. ''The injustice of
compelling all to contribute alike for
that which especially benefits but few
is what protest against" From this it
seems evident that Mr. B. still persists
in the fallacy of his former reasoning.
and that the advocates of pixies are q
narrow-minded, selfish set, having no
motive but self-interest in this "aggress
i've" measure.
/ would ask in the name of common
sense, Gor that is a quality which some
of MS are supposed to be deficient in.) |
where in all the polity of civil affairs is
there anything that comes up to the
standard that Mr. b. has erected to gov
ern us in this pike question: His feel
ings being the very essence of kindness"
and good humor, as displayed in his last
article. and the reverse of what seemed |
to have been his feelings when writing
the preceding one, l cannot help but
believe he is perpetrating joke on those
for whom he assumes the championship,
when he so gravely asserts that but few
would be benefited by having good
roads to travel.
Now. let us suppose another case, and
there are hundreds of exact counter
parts all over the county. Here is Mr.
1. who owns 166 acres of land with a
public highway running through it. This
,ighwav occupies from 2 1-2 to acres CT
and. according to width and distance,
md is used 10y the public, and is public
,roperty to all intents and purposes.
\. having no control over it whatever.
except that in common with his neigh
Dor r.. whose farm of 100 acres lies Just
Jack Of AS. of course 4. has the right TO
ravel this road in common with his
,eigi. Dor B.. ard he has the further and
.lessed right to keep up good, strong
ance or. each side of il, aUd to pay the
axes On the ground it occupies, and he
as .he still further right TO furnish the
round for a township or neighborbood
cad .or the exclusive benefit ofneighbOr
B., all on tie just and equitable con
itions above stated.
These certainly are great benefits ard
lessinss, and IL A. were not an aban
oned, selfish wretch, he would acknowl-