Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1883-02-22
aHIshFsys sna rszai'sH.y 4
We sA.sIfSly siIs 'rplst gasa

caption; and are gratifed that our arti.
Gle Of last week has provoked discussion.
although there IL hardly difference
enough between the writer and oursslf
TO create controversy. II the amend
meut 10 the so-calIed Norton act, making
its provisions co-txtensiss with the
county, becomes a part Of the Law. the
only reasonable Objection which eSyid
be made to 1t has, OF course, ceased. and
the propfiety al sxercisiog thediseretiSn
conferred by IL is allthat remsins; and ip
this point werecognizs Che powerof our
cCtrsspOndeut's -96gsssiOas fIg be
That discretion to make and control
local improvements must le1iss some
where, we also concsde. but still insist
that this discretion conferred upon local
taxing powers. in too many instances
composed Of persons Of little judgment
and mo- experiences. Vis not suficienay
restricted. The Norton act, in thisIe;
spect. is perhaps preferable 70 the general
law, as ii circumscribes this dianFetiop
within two instead Of Ave mills, but sim
leaves the exercise of It's power open to
the irregularity which has made the local
assessments and taxation 5ier lroad and
ditch improvements almost criminal;
made them odios and sub bjects to con-
tempt and redicule. There should be an
accountability somewhere. Perhaps the
prosecution Of some bonds would have q
beneficial effect. aud probably d little en-!
ergy on behalf of grand juries could be
utilized. A discretionary power con-
ferred under our system Of governmert
does not create potentate nor make a
sovereign.
The necessity Of good roads is conceded,
but We are not willing 70 ooncede the
logic of the Norton set IN giving prefer
enceto these improvements to the locality
which offers premium. Wedo not like
premiums as an incentive to official ener-
gy-we fear that there has been. too
much Of this. Our county isyet new
much Of it wild lands but sparcely SET
tied; much of the land owned by nom
residents and which has already been
levied under tribute greater than its
value for bitches and road improvements
and the improvements ended in the en-
gineer's work. The owners Of these lands
cannot be expected to voluntarily con-
tribute to other promised improvements
which may end in the same way. Yet,
II must DO admitted, that these very por.
tions Of the county are the ones whore
are mostly needed, and
being unable to raise the twenty per cent,
and even should the courts concede that
. law may be made to take effeot upon
the payenent Of q money confederation.
andsto effect only the locality which con-
tributes the considsration-the .swamps
Of the county would still remain. and the
addition to the duplicate bs hut atrifie.
II the roads are to be improved, let the i'm
provement be thorough and embrace the
entire road. OF course, improve the
main roads, those mostly travelled, first.
end let the others follow. +.
Our correspondent cannot be more de-
sirous than we TO reduce taxation, and
we admit that there is more thansons
way 70 do shis.
The addition Of taxable property il
very efficient one. and to this
end, We, in our last weeks article, urged
upon assessors the propriety Of paying .
little attention to official obligations In
listing pfoperty An exsmiustion q the
duplicate Of personal Spropsfty 4puld
convey the idapression thAt 1--WE srela
county Of paupers.
The following table. compiled from The
Auditor of States report for 1881, shows
The duplicates Of personal property Of ouE
own and adjoining counties:
,4So,I9
gensnco........ ses,1vi