The record-union., 1898-03-16

he had already, at great expense. re-
claimed his own lands. and therefore that
10 him. incidentally it may be remarked
that II IS claimed that some of the Iap1s
~ the district escaped assessment alto
gether; but as these were in one instance
only SIX acres, and in another less than
one acre. they are TOO trifiing TO engage
the attention Of the court.
cannot discover any just reason why
the SIA-dcre tract, covered by the leVee
OF Mr.. Greene, on the south boundary or
the district escaped assessment; but. as
before remarked the court cannot over
turn proceedings OF a magnitude involved
IN this action upon 50 trifling point. As
70 the allegation that the lands are not
assessed at proportionate fig7.res, it IS
SCInclcnt to say that about , 500 acres be-
longing to the small owners and eoualing
in area the total tract owned by the de-
tendant. were assessed al practically the
same hgure. and only 1,500 acres or
thereabouts. We're assessed at the lower
hgure OF S1I per acre
In order to understand fully the equity
or hon-equity OF this assessment 1t IS
formation of the district.
The evidence shows that a narrow strip
extends along the river front Throughout
the length of the district, which strip is
very mCch higher than the balance OF
the district, with the exception of a
small tract of few rods in the northeast
corner. This strip along the river front
mas an average hight exceeding thirteen
feet above zero mark, and is high enough
so that in all ordinary seasons crops can
be raised and harvested without any rec
lamarion whatsoever. This point should
be constantly borne in mind by the court
IN determining whether or not the levy
CT Sll per acre Is unTeaS0nably Favorable
20 these lands.
All the balance Of the district is at an
elevation below thirteen feet above zero
mark. and nearly all of that portion OF
it owned by the defendant-I may say
all Of ii. except about 640 acres-lS at the
very low elevation of not more than hVe
feet. while the remaining $500 acres IN
the district belonging to various Iana-
owners ranges from about i've to ABOUT
thirteen feet.
On The lands of the defendant is sit
uated Lake of about $50 acres, toward
which lake all the lands in the district
naturally drain; and if reclamation
works We're devised which eifectuaily kept
out the inside or overflow water, ana
pumping works which would keep the lake
dry. then all the lands in the district
would be efectually reclaimed. In othet
words the defendants land clusters about
the lowest point in the district.
In 1886 the defendant expended $500
in constructing. pumping plant ana
$1S.G00 on his ditches for the purpose OF
pumping his land clear of water, and this
plant operated so satisfactorily that toe
a number Of years the defendant pumped
not only the waters from his own land,
but also those draining into the lake from
the lands of many of his neighbors.
BY the time the district was organized
in 1893 this plant had so far worn out
and its foundations given way, that it
was worth vastly less than the sum ex-
pended upon it. In fact, probably worth
not more than S30.0e0.
If there We're any evidence of this fact
needed II is furnished by the act Of
the defendant himself in eXpending an ad-
ditional sum of S2S,GG0 in 1895 to perfect l..
This last expenditure, Il should be re-
membered was incurred after the organ
ization of the district
I find as a fact that for some years
prior to 1898 defendants pump did handle
with moderate degree OF success ali
the waters of the district
But ] further find that by that time It
had become 50 far dilapidated that IT
could not longer have done so with sue
cess.
The defendant complains bitterly that
the District Trustees have not acted in
good faith toward him. in that they re-
fused to purchase his pumping plant and
bitches at an agreed price OF Sl5,0U0 Now
upon his important R9int 9S} LIN / ma na the
tiations were pending back and forth be-
tween the small landowners on the one
hand and the defendant on the other,
concerning the organization of the dis
trict two gentlemen did in TACT enter
into a contract with the defendant, by
the terms of which the defendant was
to elect one Trustee, and the other land
holders We're to elect the two gentlemen
in question as the other Trustees, and
that this Board of Trustees should. as
soon as practicable after the organiza-
ton Of the district, purchase the plant
of the defendant at said agreed price OF
However. when the knowledge of this
compact became disseminated amongst
the settlers in the district such furious
opposition was eVinced to II that they
refused TO abide by the terms of the com
pact. and insisted that If it We're ad-
hered 10 they would run another and sep
arate ticket of their own for Trustees or
the district.
Under the circumstances the two set
tlers partieS to the compact went 10
the defendant and said to him that it
would be absolutely necessary Tor them
to cancel the compact and to state the
fact in public meetin Of the settlers IN
the district in order to elect the three
Trustees originally agreed upon. In con-
formity with this state of facts. the de-
fendant went into the public aSsemblage
in which the election was in progress and
stated TO the electors there assembled
that he released the other parties TO
the compact from each and every pro
vision and obligation thereof ThereuDon
the three Trustees originally agreed upon
were elected as Trustees Of the district.
II is now insisted by the defendant that
as these Trustees did not afterWard offer
the defendant $4,000 for his plant and
bitches. that they had not acted in good
But the court is compelled to hold and
decide that this contention is not well
founded. The evidence shows that the
property was certainly worth at least
S2SG00 less than $4,000 and that 1t was
probably worth little. If any more than
half the sum the defendant wanted for IT.
i
ganiZation of the district the Trustees
did offer to the defendant the sum of
SOS 600 for his plant and bitches. This.
am constrained to hold. was very far in
excess of its actual value TO the district.
/ only advert to these matters. not rs
being any very important feature IN the
strating a disposition on the part of the
district to deal fairly with the defend
The fact that the defendant went on
a o.. bo er1iz al nf tha 6ietTiot and
in defiance of it and its efforts at recla-
nation. expended the additional sum Of
S8.0G0 in 1885 in rebuilding his pumping
plant. cannot initiate in his favor. lie
did this with his eyes open. with the
knowledge that the assessmeul Naf been
Lewis and if we impEte a knowledge OF
the law, then with the knowledge that
the assessment could and would be law
fully collected. 1t is seen by mathe-
matical computation that If the assess
ment of $15A 000 were distributed evenly
over the entire district. it would amount
10 about ST. 90 an acre. Now. when Il is
remembered that the 1,500 or LOO acres of
nlgh i2nd are capable OF pFoalclng crops
in all ordinary years without any recla-
nation and that they are assessed at
$l1 per acre | can find no subst antial basis
for the contention that the defendant is
over-asse ssed or that his assessment is
out If proportion TO the benefits conferred
upon his premises. especially in view Of
the fact that $500 acres Of the district
were assessed at the same figure.
If the defendant We're entitled to any
consideration at all by reason of the i'm
proponents which he had erected for
Teclaining his lard II would be only on
account of the bitches: and l think It
must be presumed that the Commissioners
in ierying the assessment proceeded upon
the assumption that the district would
either condemn and thereby lawfully ac-
quire. these bitches. and reimburse the
defendant for them. or. on the other hand.
| they regarded them as being no valuable
part Of the system of reclamation.
If there are any persons who are en-
! titled 10 complain of the inequality Of
the assessment 1t is certainly not the