Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1879-02-28

We extract the following from letter to
the Wood County Reporter, from Mr.. AMOS
DEwEsE, well-known old farmer of Wes.
ton township, and one whom we believe
has always been considered good, reliable
Republican:
As the matter of the action of our County
Commissioners in taxing the people for
bitches and other matters is now being dis
cussed, feel all inclination to give you a
bit OF my experience with them, in the
matter of Sugar Creek Ditch, as it is
called.
In order that the case may be fully un-
derstood, it will be necessary to give lit
tie history OF this ditch. The east branch
of Sugar Creek Ditch runs along the west
side of my farm. Twenty.six years ago
last fall, my neighbors and myself, dug
that ditch, SO that it served our purpose
for the time. Twice since that time it has
been dug out deeper and wider to accom-
modate other lands, and now this last is
the fourth time we have made this ditch.
At this last time of making, the work was
first appOrtioned under the old law, and
he Cost OF the amount apportioned to me
estimated at 10c per yard, was Sll7.75, and
the width OF the bottom of the ditch was
to be II feet. At the hearing under this
npportionment, the Commissioners reduced
the size OF the ditch to 8 feet bottom, thus
taking off one-fourth from the original
size of the ditch. Afterward they sold the
work under what they called the new law,
though for what reason or how they did it,
l could never understand. Under this new
law they sold the work at from Sc to Sc per
yard. Now remember, my original tax,
with the ditch II feet bottom at lOc per
yard, was Sll7.75. With the ditch cut
down to 8 feet bottom and the price cut
down to an average Of 6lc. per pard, con
6dently expected, and claim | had a
right to expect, that my portion Of the
expense would be not to exceed hall the
original charge of Sll775, or say $50, at
the very outside.
Now mark the result! My tax for that
ditch was Sl60!! Instead OF decreasing
they added more than one third To my
original assessment. | made c0mpl aint to
the Commissioners and showed them where,
in believed they had done me u wrong
and all the satisfaction got was, that Mr.
Pierce swOre, lie would be q ID id II
he would take of a cent; the others might
do M they pleased !" The others did not
swear at me, but they left the assessment
Just as it was, not daring to do otherwise
apparently, and excusing themselves on the
ground that they had taxed my neghbor,
about the same. All this was done ftel
Mr.. Pierce had been on the work for which
| was paying, and admitted that it WIS No
goud, and said he was glad il was not on
his place. This work was sold To he com
pleted in 80 days and u bond taken 10 lha
effect. A year and half is past and it i,
) not yet completed, and during this tim'
they have destroyed wheat and meadow
and thrown down fences Still, they sa,
this is no damage to me. ."When the wick
ed rule the people mourn"
Alter digging this ditch three times be
fore, now pay Tor this fast making 0i thi
! Sugar Creek Ditch, sum greatly in exec,
OF what IL wou Id have been worth to cou
! siruct the portion assigned to me, il III
I sod had never been bruken, claim thi
; to he one of the most lfne xampled, bare
faced outrages ever perpetrated upon FIRE
I people, and | claim that II shows either Il
I competency or dishonesty, and speak III
Il sentiments OF many others, nOtwithsiant
y ing the Sentinei says, all except sOrehea,
e and lawyers, are satisfied
o AMOS DEwEsE.
Feb. Is, 1879.