The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1877-09-14

intact, and the theft is not discovered
until an attempt is made topull of the
ear, and then it is provoking. .
PICKEN's CORNERS, Aug. %. 1877.
ED. JRFF: To day l attended meet
ing of the Commissioners of Hancock
and Putnam counties The object of
which was to consider retition of
Jno. Learn and Others, of Putnam
county, TO deepen and widen ditch
partly i'll Putnam county and partly
Hancock county. To the ditch | am
not opposed, but take the liberty OF
criticising the action of some of the
gentlemen who represented Putnam
county in this joint commission
About 40 men were assembled in the
barn of John Van Sicle. talking pro-
miscuously Oh all kinds of subject,
when one of the Putnam Commission
ers, without calling the meeting TO or
der, or in any way making statement
of its object, moved that Mr.. Bishop,
of Hancock, be elected chairman there
was second, and Mr. Bishop was elect
ed, thus giving to Putnam county a
decided advantage in deciding the
question by vote, there were remaining
5 on the commission, votes to be cast
by Putnam, and but 2 from Hancock.
Engineer Phifer's report of the sur
vey was read and accepted. This re-
port was a marvel of exactness. A re-
monstance was then presented by Mr..
Shaw, of Shawtoun, signed by As resi-
dent land owners of Hancock, a long
the line of said ditch, stating various
reasons why they should not be taxed
to construct this work. 1t was stated
by Mr.. Shaw that at the lower end of
the work in Putnam county the water
was turned from its natural course,
and that the former ditch had filled up
with sediment; that there was little or
no grade for the last half mile, the wa
ter was rather made 70 run u hill, in
order to get it into the Winters
ditch. Reference was made to Mr..
Phifer's report, and there was shown
to be 313 feet fall in he last z of a
mile. Here Nj. Shaw was subjected
to open ridicule by two of the Putnam
county commissioners, with sarcastical
expressions of "yes the water runs up
hill does it? yes, it runs up hill the
wrong way" and "'it runs up hill over
the keft."
A lenthy discussion followed in
which one OF the gentlemen from Put
nam county joined, With all the free
dom of an attorney, before a court. ig-
noriDg the fact that lie, at that time,
was part OF d court in which his own
vote was to be counted in deciding the
result. We have known of men being
subsidiz.G, and when We see an uncom
on amount of zeal bestowed upon pub
lie fairs, where impartiality should be
tile reignius spirit, we think perhaps
the subsidy has become chronic. Of
the Hancock officials we have but little
to say; As men aud women endowed
with reason and Judgment, guided by
principle and interest, said 20 them,
our ditch is deep enough. In this they
certainly could not be mistaken; but
the answer virtually was, "the law
must be complied with; you must go
and dig this ditch and it will be great
benefit to you" This would be much
easier established had not those men
the right of Suffrage, the right to
change their votes. They may go on
and dig the ditch that they have de-
clared they do not want, but the, re-
sentiment of their minds will take ac-
tiop. 1t will be felt in conventions
and ct the polls, and officials will be
taught lesson in regarding the will of
the people. We have the highest re-
gard for law, but if the will of the
people is not law under our system of
Government we would like to know
what is. J. W. BUTLER.
I'VE know but little of the merits of
the controversy in which our cores
pondent takes hand, but the closing
sentence of his communication is
bad one for his argument. The will
of the people" sohen la,cfuily expressed,
constitutes the law of the land. Not
the will of town lne~fing-or the will
of a majority in a single locality, but
the will of the majority of the body
corporate. The people directly do not
make laws nor do they directly repeal
them. They delegate their authority
to their representatives, and only act
through them Admit the theory of
our correspondent, and there could be
no general laws, but law would be at
the mercy of each locality. What
would be law in one would be outrage
in another. 1t would be practical null
liication, and anarchy would be the
next step. If the commission has over
stepped its authority, there is a lawful
way ofreaehing it. An injunction would
restrain, and the facts resulting from
inquiry would sustain whichever is the
right. ED. JRFF.l