Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1897-03-04
Madison, March 2.

argrucys ana taxpayers peloIe luS
.onste committee on state affairs Mon
day evening, which body listened TO ar
,uments on the Dane CLunty drainage
natter now unuer consideration /. Z.
| Ricnmond was the first speaker. he
| anneared for -he 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
" no benefit; second, to collect tax
in which the payers hac absolutely no
| voice in fixing amount or appointing OF
commissioners He traced the history
nj the drainage legislation. If the com
missioners have any vested rights in
the matter. these, Mr.. Richmond as
serted, could not be interfered with.
The principal argun ent Of these men
he said would doubtless be that II 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-
pecially when they opposed the meas
IRE and as those who favored drainage
didn't get what they wanted there was
no obligation resting on them either.
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 1t was COM
Melted He would rot have those who
invested money in the scheme to lose
il all They probably acted in good
faith. but when anyone engages IN
speculation he must take his chances
on losing. No benefit has accrued 10
the property owners and he thought
il highly unjust that they should be
taxed $4,000 to find cut that some
thing could not be d, ne.
The next speaker was F. W. Hail.
who stated the position OF the COM
mis- sioners. These did not wish 10
leave the impression Of having been
dishonest. He said the people OF the
drainage district had been overWheln''
ingly in favor of the scheme IN the
SOS Mr.. Stevens ana MI
Main had to favor the scheme to secure
election to the Legislature, he ID. me
newspapers were FIJI OF discussi ms on
the matter and the opposition was SO
slight as to be nos apparent The ml'i
owners opposed il. but the city anu
county wanted it. The city no"
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 ciamor
and now the came public is clamoring
for its repeal because the expense Is
slightly larger thaa 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-calied
moral obligations being imposed upon
| the tax-payers. 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. Inc
laws Of S5 and 'S7 were honorable acts,
but that of 80 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
10 individuals and public health, also II
the cost would be less than the beneht
derived The circuit court declared the
scheme would not be to such effect anu
at the mill owners demurrer the SUI
preme court sustained it. Up to 1889
not cent had been spent Then by the
law Of 50 after the supreme court hau
declared that the measure would De d
menace to the public health, the comInls-
siouers were appointed and the right OF
the taxpayers 20 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 10
So with their eyes open. A man VINO
goes into a scheme that the courts have
declared as detrimental to the pupiic
health must be regarded as taking MS
chances.
s. L. Sanborn closed the arguments
H' appeared Tor numDeF vi tiV 90
payers who wanted some honorable
means OF settling the matter lie had
watched the drainage matter from us
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-
p1sa the mill owners and a very rev
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.
J. is dishonesty on their part to ask Tor
rs repeal Ten taxpayers could nave
defeated the scheme at the start as the
committees were loath 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 deed, but he would
rather have the acts rel ealel with some