The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1891-03-18
Taxpayer Defended.
ELYRIA, O., MARCH IA, 1891


4 Editor of The ENTERPRISE:
DEAR SIR:-In this weeks issue yol
print communication respecting th'
statute requiring County Commissioners Il
build guard rails" upon. bridges ant
. bridge approaches and in which "Tax-pay
er," the writer of the article, condemns
the law and asks for its repeal notice
also that you dissent from the views OF
Taxpayer and commend the law.
AS this is very important matter to the
the taxpayers Of the county ami as you
invite discussion beg leaye to state few
reasons why think Taxpayer" is right
in demanding the repeal OF the law.
The latter part If Section one as it ap
pears in your paper reads as follows; T;
"And also within five years after the pas
sage Of this act, to protect by suitable
guard rails, all perpendicular wash banks
more than eight feet in height
where the same shall haye any i'm
mediate connection with public high.
way, or is adjacent thereto in an unpro-
tected condition. Providing that IN
municipal corporations 1t shall be done by
the municipality"
1t is hard TO understand just what this
means. The language is Perpendicular
wash banks" IL is likely there is not in
1 the county wash bank that Is perpen-
dicular and If regard Is had to the mean
ing of words there would be no trouble,
for the law, by reason of the fact that
banks exactly perpendicular do not exist,
would be imperative. Bot unfortunately
1t is not difficult TO find a court which
would cOnstrue the word TO mean any
bank, the slant Of which is less than As
from perpendicular.
Agaiu the law says: "Where the same
shall have any immediate connection with
Highway or is adjacent thereto" 1t
would be difficult for any Board ol Com
missioners TO determine just what "adia
cent" means. II does not necessarily sig
nifty bordering upon, but under the ordi-
nary meaning of the term would include u
bank IRON one rod to half mile from the
road.
There is no reason either In requiring
municipal corporations, which pay their
proportion Of the tux for bridge purposes
to build the raillngs needed within the
corporation, Either all ratings coming
within the class specified should be erect
ed out Of the common fund raised by the
general tax or the municipal corporation
required to erect its own railings, should
be exempted from the general lax levied
for thai purpose.
But the chief objection to the law is In
the fSct that Section Of the act renders
the county liable 10 prosecution for dam.
ages by reason OF failure to comply with
any Of the provisions thereof by the
County commissioners. This Is con-
trary to the policy Of the State as shown
by It's Legislature up 10 the enactment of
this statute. 1t opens an avenue for an
approach TO the County treasury, which
heretofore the taxpayers and the
State considered II prudent to keep
closed.
To carry out this law by the constuc-
tion OF railings upon wash banks connect
ed with or adjacent TO" the public high
ways in Lorain county will demand an
immediate expenditure Of more than
800, 200, ana an annual expenditure Of
sum equal If not greater Than the levy for
bridge purposes
In addition TO this amount to be paid
for costs and expenses Of litigation which
will certainly groS out Of this policy and
the judgments which will follow, IS likely
to make another sum Of equal amount.
acknowledge the justice Of your com.
ment that dangerous places along the
highway should be guarded, but ! doubt
the expediency of making the county
liable for q neglect TO do so.
What, perhaps, ought to be done is TO
place the whole matter In the hands OF
the Commissioners, upon the same basis
with bridges and trust TO their good judg.
ment both in regard to the work TO be
done and the money TO be expended. As
the law now stands an action would not
lie against the county for failure of the
Commissioners TO build bridgeor to keep
it in repair. Can any good reason be
given why the county should be made
liable for failure 10 build railing ION
bank adjacent TO highway" when Il
would NOT be liable Tor not building bridge
or for maintaining defective one In high.
way? Taxpayer" Is right The law
ought TO be repealed. Yours Truly,
4. q. JOHNSON.
Il would he hard work for the law max.
ers to determine the distance Of placing
guard rails to approaches 10 bridges, as
every case has lis peculiar surroundings,
hence the better plan would be TO leave Il
to the discretion Of the commissioners or
committee o. be created by some
power to actor them. II may be neces-
sary to amend some Of the sections in the
act to make IL more explicit, but as better
protection to lives and property is the