The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-04
KANKAKEE DRAINAGE.
MIR. Borders Presents Further Reasons
Why state Ala Should Be Given.

Mr. bOEOeES frcScmtS urtAcH fteaSONS
Why State Ala Should Be Given.
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
/ desire to say a word more upon this SUBJ
ject. 1 do not want to be understood as
favoring a scheme by which the State will
be put to the expense of retaining this
land. The owners of the lands who will be
benefited by the drainage should pay the
expense, but the State will be greatly bene-
fitted by the work, and the State should do
it's part, namely-it should furnish a way
by which the drainage can be had; a law
adequate to the enterprise. To one who has
had experience with public drains, one ac-
quainted with the extreme difficulty had in
successfully carrying out q drainage of any
magnitude, it will readily appear that this
drainage cannot be had by any law hastily
prepared. The person or body of per-
sons who prepare q law, by which
this land can be successfully reclaimed
must have experienced and must be well
acquainted with what is needed. The init
mate knowledge of all the surroundings re-
CURED can only be had by spending time
and money. For this the State should pay.
Further, the work should not be begun un-
less there is a reasonable certainty that it
can be carried to a successful termination.
The State should pay the expenses Of such
investigation as is necessary. The State
should do this because the whole State is
interested in removing this unhealthy
blemish from our midst, and because the
increased valuation will, in a few years,
more than repay, in the way of taxes, ali
it will cost. This is my view of the ques-
ton, and the Legislature should do some
thing on this line at once.
nave read the article by Mr.. Jones, of
Wabash. 1t is real funny, but [ do not be-
licve the writer knows much about the
Kankakee bottoms. l have great respect
for the opinion of Mr.. Andrew Hall upon
this, or almost any other subject. But he
is labOring under some errors. There is no
danger that lands not benefited will be as
sessed for draining other lands. The State
has not power to do that. Whenever the
land owner shows that he is not benefited
the question of his assessment is settled.
Again, our drainage laws are Insufficient
for this work. We have no law by which
a lake can be drained or lowered. The lien
existing mortgages, and all a land owner
need do to defeat the collection of the as
sessment is to keep A good big mortgage
upon his land There is no provision by
which the State can be made to pay for
draining its own land; in cases within my
personal knowledge this has worked a very
great hardship.
1t appears to me that the Journal, in
it's article of Jan. 90, presumes a good deal
when 1t asserts that men appointed to in
yestigate this question will report favor
ably to it regardless of its feasibility. I
have a better opinion of the honesty and
the bill now before the Legislature / know
but little and care less. 1t may be as
full or defects as the Kankakee marshes
of malaria. IL it is wrong now is the time
to change it and make it a good law.
Winanlac. Feb 2 3. BORDERS,