Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1882-03-02
The Snowman Bridge Again.

ED. NoRIHwEsT:-In the further dis
eussion OF moving au old established pub
lie highway from practical ground for a
good wagon road between Damascus and
the Gearing bridge over the canal, a dis
tanee Of over one mile, to build new road
along and under the bank OF said canal las
l understand the petition) driving the
public travel from good road into con-
slant mud hole, as would be when becom-
ing public highway, by the seepage of
canal water through the bank which is
unavoidable, the truth of which is too
plain to need argument to any mind or re-
fiection, and the only point urged for this
removal is the fear that nature may get on
a irolick and renew the times of Noah and
take away bridge over Turkeyfoot creek
ut the Snowman farm where but one has
ever been disturbed by flood, and that too
several feet lower than the present abut-
matter beyond peradventure these abut-
ments can be raised one or two feet higher
at trihing expense to the county before
the bridge is put OIL and still be perfectly
practicable for public use, while on the OH
er hand will single individual undertake
to maintain, the height of absurdity, that
a good dry road for public travel can be
had at the foot and in immediate proXim.
ity to any bank where water is always
seeping out, much less, in close proximity
to the canal bank or at the foot of any res
orvoir of water; proposition so plain as
this needs no time for reflection when the
mind is once called to the fact, and those
who have placed their names to such
petition without reflection, it is their right,
and their duty, as citizens, to correct any
error they may have unwittingly made,
when convinced of such fact.
Now, besides the inconvenience of the
public being crowded into a necessarily
muddy track under this canal bank
sought by the proposed change and the
large additional cost to the county in these
new constructions, there is still another
point touching the rights of individuals
and stepping on legal grounds to be con.
sdered in this connection.
Here is large farm owned and occupied
to be deprived of this public highway by
such removal which was purchased at al
appreciated price with special reference tt
this public road coming to it, and all thu
farm buildings erected with the same con
sideration Immediately contiguous to thi'
road now proposed to be vacated and shu
them out from the world by removing thi
bridge as proposed by said petition, de-
,, stroying purchased, and paid for right
, with reasonable expectation that i
would remain at their door forever. LIE
me ask any man that placed his signature
on that petition had he been the party t,
have been deprived of this right in beinl
. shut out from the world, would he the1
place his name on that paper? Most clearl
no! Then if not, can he place himself upol
the moral standard of doing unto his neigh
Dor as he would that his nelghbor shoul'
do unto him. Morality is the foundation
tice. Now how does this case sum up?
1st. We commit a moral wrong by ask
: ing to deprive our neighbor of what W
would not deprive ourselves under eth
same circumstances.
~ I'd. There is no proof or reasonable sup
y position that any body is to be beneftte
by this departure.
" Sd. 1t is clear proposition that larg
-" expense must be incurred to the count
" by granting the prayer of said petition.
4th. That the public travel along tina
road will be discomoded if crowded up t
the foot of the canal bank where constan
- seepage of water is going on the yea
% round.
70 9TH. There is no merritt whatever in tn
- proposed change and only damage to b
~ experienced in every point at issue.
~ TAVpAyER