Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1897-03-04
Madison, March 2


day evening, which body listened 70 ar
guments on the Dane c|unty drainage
matter now under consideration. I. {.
Richmond was the first speaker. He
appeared for tha taxpayers and made
a vigorous address against paying the
costs incurred. He made two protests:
First against the state imposing tax
on people for what has given absolute
ly 20 benefit; secoLd, TO collect tax
in which the payers kaC absolutely Nc
voice in fixing amount OF appointing OF
commissioners. He traced the history
of the drainage legislation. II the COM
missioneTs have any vested rights IN
the matter, these, Mr.. Richmond as
serted, could not be interfered with.
The principal argUr. ent Of these men
he said would doubtless be that il le-
gal obligation did not rest on the tax
payers a moral one did. There il no
moral law, he said, that could make
people pay for what they didn't get, eS-
peciaIly when they opposed the meas
ure, and as those who favored drainage
didn't get what they wanted there was
If there is a moral obligation resting
on anyone, it is on the state, which
began the movement and then stepped
in and stopped it before it was COM
pleted. He would rot have those who
invested money in the scheme to lose
it all. They probably acted in good
faith. but when anyone engages in
bn n ch2ncPS
on losing. No benefit has accrued to
the property owners and he thought
it highly unjust that they should be
taxed $4,000 to find cut that some
thing could not be dine.
The next speaker was F. w. Hall,
who stated the position of the COM
mis- sioners. These did not wish to
leave the impression CT having been
dishonest. He said the people of the
drainage district had been overWhelni-
ingly in favor of the scheme in the
SOS. Mr.. Stevens and Mr..
Main had to favor the scheme to secure
election to the Legislature, he said. The
newspapers were full of discussions on
the matter and the opposition was so
slight as to be not apparent. The mill
owners opposed it. but the city ana
county wanted it. The city now
the mill dam and Goes the baby act
in asking that the matter be dropped
and the expense incurred wiped out.
The law was passed at a great clamor
and now the same public is clamoring
for it's repeal because the expense Is
slightly larger THAI expected.
Col. George w. Bird for the tax-pay-
res said that the repeal of the law would
endanger no vested rights But the re-
peal would prevent any more so-called
moral obligations being imposed upon
the taxpayers 1t would stop the ma
chinery and that was enough. The ma
chine set in operation by the original
drainage act was quite different from
the machine now asked to go on. The
laws Of '85 and 'S7 were honorable acts,
but that of SO was an outrage. BY the
first the taxpayers were allowed to be
heard, and provided that the court
should determine before commissioners
were appointed whether the scheme was
one of public utility and beyond damage
to individuals and public health, also If
the cost would be less than the benefit
derived. The circuit court declared the
scheme would not be to such effect and
at the mill owners demurrer the SUI
preme court sustained it. Up to 1889
not a cent had been spent. Then by the
law of SO after the supreme court had
declared that the measure would be a
menace to the public health, the commits
sioners were appointed and the right Of
the taxpayers 70 have a word in the
matter or the appointment of these men
was taken away. He denied the moral
obligation of the taxpayers: He fur
Their said that the people who advance
money as the men did in this matter do
so with their eyes open. A man who
goes into a scheme that the courts have
declared as detrimental to the public
health must be regarded as taking his
chances.
A. L. Sanborn closed the arguments.
He appeared for a number Of the tax
payers who wanted some honorable
means Of settling the matter He had
watched the drainage matter from its
first beginnings. He had heard many
new things last night he said. He
denied that the taxpayers had had no
voice in the matter. On its first pro-
posal the mill owners and a very few
taxpayers had opposed it. The others
had an opportunity to do so. The acts
should not be repealed because they fol-
low directly from what the people of the
drainage district themselves have done.
It is dishonesty on their part TO ask for
its repeal. Ten taxpayers could have
defeated the scheme at the start as the
committees were Ioath to report favor
ably on it. The supreme court of the
United States, he said held the acts
showed due process Of law. The drain
age scheme was now dead, but he would
rather have the acts repealed with some
way of paying the expenses incurred and
of preserving the right of action That
would eventually end the machinery of
litigation. He accordingly offered sub
stitule bill for the repeating act which
affected the repeal provided vested rights
of the parties interested are preserved.
The intent Of the measure is that the
plan of drainage should be prosecuted
no farther but that the right of action
shall not be taken away.
A further hearing will be held this
evening.
MATUEArJS CTApT II0NrH