The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1900-02-01
Pears
No soap in the
world is SO cheap.
No soap in the
world is 50 lasting.

but they are 10 be constructed over
a practicable route without dcs-
ignating which route ls the most
practicable one In each case. Each OF
these roads VIII be over thirty miles
In length. and no direction. courses. or
intermediate points are given, except
IN the first road, whore Seaside aud the
Nec0nicum river are named M inter
mediate points. and IN the second road
where Olney and Jewell are named as
intermediate points. In the last named
road there Is o distance Of thirty miles
between the beginning and ending
point. In which no route II described,
except that II shall be the most practi-
cable route. II Is therefore practically
left 10 the discretion Of the county
commissioner 10 establish or locate
the particular route. and therefore the
road 20 be constructed. or IN other
words the public highway or improve
meat % be made In each case II not
identified or described by the petition,
except IN very loose or general terms
Il VIII thus appear that the county
court may build the roads through in
termediate points quite remote or in
different from that expected or In
V'Ep'" Vy tne petI,sV-
therefore conclude that the petition
does rot describe the roads or high
ways with sufficient certainty for iden-
tiiloation. and that therefore the petl-
tlon IL not definite enough to give the
court jurisdiction TO order the i'm
pro,einent. or rather levy the tax.
There is another objection which I
think equally fatal The petition in
the case OF each road apparently con-
templates that new routes shall be To-
cateI and roads laid out and construct
ed over them. as that must be what is
meant ty the words the most practi-
cable route"
Now, the commissioners have no
power OF their own motion to establish
or locate roads The commissioners
cannot acquire Jurisdiction to establish
roads except upon the petition Of
twelve householders In the vicinity Of
the proposed road The Improvement
then is 10 be upon road that Is not
only not established or laid out, but
upon n road that II is not within the
power OF the court TO establish or lay
out. For instance, u the interested
householders refused to petition for the
road. or II the claim for damages Is
too excessive. In the one case. il will
not be within the power of the court
to locate the road. and In the ether
case It might be eXpedlent to do so on
account Of the damages. II therefore
occurs to me that the court is without
jurisdiction TO levy a tax under this
petition. because II contemplates an
Improvement which 1t may not be
within the power OF the court to make.
The court should certainly not be al
lowed by law, and il Is presumed that
il was not intended by law, that the
court could levy a tax for proposed
improvement which could not be made. |
That is. so far as public highways are /
concernt d they must be in existence at /,
the time of the levy Of the tax, as then /
II Is within the power Of the court to
apply the proceeds upon the improve
ment II might be that in the case Of
a river improvement where the county /
las the right TO condemn for bridges
the law would be otherwise.
In SUMMING up. will say for these
two reasons, first, because the petition
does not sufficiently describe or iden-
tify the roads or public Improvements,
for which the levy is to be made, to
give the court jurisdiction to levy the
tax, and. second, because the petition
the Improvement Of roads
not IN existence, and which it is not
within the power of the court, unaided,
to establish. by which II viii appear
that the court cannot be assured that
the Improvement viii be made, con-
rlude that the petition in question is
void and the court is without jurisdic-
ion to make the levy prayed for there
n Respectfully submitted,
C. r, THOMSON.