The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1881-09-15
The Wyatt Road Improvement.


Asthe Wyatt Road improvementseems
to be unjustly dragged into the political
canvass this fall, against the Democratic
candidate for County Commissioner, and
the facts concerning the proceedings of
its construction before the Commission
ers exaggerated and misrepresented for
political purposes, we have concluded to
give a brief statement of the facts in re-
lation to that road Improvement, in or
der that all persons in favor of such pub
lie enterprises in our growing and pros
porous county, may not be misled in cast
ing their ballots for County Commission
er:
On the 4th day of March, 1880, Levi
district to be affected by the construction
of the road, filed a petition before the
Commissioners of Preble county, pray
ing for the improvement of the road in
question, the petitioners having given the
necessary bond conditioned for the pay
ment of the expenses of a view and sur
vey in case the improvement should not
be ordered by the Commissioners, and
thereupon, as required by statute, the
Commissioners appointed viewers and a
Surveyor to view and survey the line of
road and report all lots and lands within
two miles of either side or end of said
road, which would be benefited thereby
and ought to be assessed for the construc-
ton thereof. Under this order OF the
Commissioners the view and survey OF
the road was made, and the viewers and
Surveyor in due time filed their report
with the Commissioners as required by
law, and said viewers did report in favor
of the construction of said improvement,
and did also report the lands and lots
which would be benefited by the con-
struction of said road and ought to be as
sessed for the construction thereof; and
also reported to the Commissioners the
names of the persons owning said lots
and lands. Afterwards, on the f" day
Fl, 1880, said proceedings came on
further to be heard before said Commits
%sioners, and the County Commissioners
thereupon counted the m of the per
sons who had signed the original petition,
when, according to the method OF count
ing adopted by the Commissioners, it
was ascertained that a majority OF the
owners of the lots and lands which were
reported benefited by said o and
which ought to be assessed for the con-
struction thereof, had signed said origi-
nal petition; and thereupon the Com
m~issioners ordered said improvement to
be made, and in further pursuance of the
statute on that subject, the Commission
ers then appointed an Apportioning Com
mittee and ordered them to proceed and
apportion the estimated expense of con-
structing said improvement on the lots
and lands SO reported benefited, accord
ing to the amount of benefit derived by
each.
At this point in the proceeding, a num-
Der of the persons whose lands were re-
ported benefited by the viewers and
which ought to be assessed for the con-
struction of the road, but who had not
signed the petition praying for the road,
but who were opposing its construction,
filed a petition in the Court of Common
Pleas of Preble county, against said
| County Commissioners and the Auditor
of said county, wherein they recited all
the proceedings in the road case before
the Commissioners, and after averring
several mistakes on the part OF the Com
missioners, averred that a majority of
the owners of the lands and lots reported
benefited by the viewers and which
ought to be assessed for the construction
thereof, had not signed the petition pray
ing for the construction of the road, and
that the Commissioners were mistaken
in their said count of the signers of said
petition, and prayed that the Court would
enjoin said Commissioners from the fur
Their prosecution of said work until the
final hearing of the case. The Judge of
the Common Pleas Court did temporari-
ly enjoin said Commissioners from fur
Their prosecuting said work, and finally
on the day of -, 1880, said case
was tried on its merits before said Court
of Common Pleas, and said Court on full
hearing held and decided that a MAORI
ty of the owners of lots and lands report
ed benefited by said viewers and which
ought to be assessed for the construction
of said improvement, had not signed the
petition at the time the same was count
ed by said Commissioners, and that con-
sequently the Commissioners had under
the statute no jurisdiction to order said
improvement at the time they did, and
then and there perpetually enjoined said
Commissioners and Auditor from further
proceeding with said improvement.
From this decision of the Common
Pleas, the Commissioners appealed to
the District Court of Preble county, and
at the April term of said Court, 1881,
said cause was fully heard before the
District Court on the merits, (there be-
ing a full Court-three Judges,) and the
District Court, after having fully heard
the case, held and decided that a major
ity of the owners of said lots and lands
HAD sIGNEI, PETITION AT THE TIME
THE SAME WAS PASSED UPON BY THE Com
~MIssIoNERs, and reversed the judgment
and decision of the Common Pleas, dis
solved the injunction at the costs of the
plaintiffs, and remanded the cause to the
Common Pleas for execution, thus leav-
ing the Commissioners free to proceed
with the construction of said road, they
having in the judgment of the District
Court acted in exact accordance with
the law in every particular.
To this decision of the District Court
the plaintiffs excepted. A bill of excep-
tons was signed by the Court and a pc
tition in error has been filed in the SUI
preme Court, but the plaintiffs not hav-
ing sufficient faith in the strength of
their case TO give a supersedeas bond,
have given none, and consequently the
Commissioners are going or with the
work.
Now then, if Mr.. Harshman was wrong
in his construction of the law, then his
brother Commissioners were wrong also,
for all three fully concurred in the method
Of counting, and among the Commission
ers themselves there was no misunder-
standing whatever. The Commissioners
construed the law in this case the same
as they construed it in all similar cases
before, and honestly believed, and still
believe, they construed it properly, and
in the highest Court in which the case
has yet been heard, it has been decided
that the Commissioners DID coNsTRUE IT
CORRECTLY, and has ordered them to pro-
coed.
Now, just why this should be urged as
an objection to Mr.. Harshman, we can
not imagine. He was one of the sworn
Commissioners at the time-the' question
was properly before him for decision,-