Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-04-29
special to. Times-Republican.

stallment plan. He signed the drain
age bill.
Special to- Times Republican.
Des Moines. April 29.-The critical
eye of Governor Cummins has been
running over the drainage bills of the
last legislature, and when he returned
home from Indiana and opened the
doors of his office to all who might de-
sire TO be heard in regard as to whether
or NOT he should sign the bills or allow
them to die of their own force. he was
able to present clearly the exact status
OF the bills. The first point, to which
he called attention when the hearing
was commenced, was that the legisla-
ture had passed one complete code for
the drainage business of the state, and
at the same time had amended the old
law and left 1t intact on the statute
books: hence there will be, II he signs
the new bill, two complete codes for
procedure to secure general drainage.
He pointed out that this will be de-
cided novelty and 1t might, in fact, lead
to some complications not pleasant.
Representative Wright, who was pres
ent. explained that the tlot of the slegis-
lators was that by leaving the old law
intact, the unfinished work might be
done legally. But II was q Omitted that
With both Laws, the persons desiring
drains might elect to CHOOSE either one
under which to start new business. Gov.
Cummins announced his position in re-
gard to veto and made it plain.
Il have very limited powers" he said,
"and am not here to legisslate. I can ex-
ercise the right Of veto only when
am fully convinced of the unconstitu-
tionality of bill, or when 1t deviates
so far from custom or precedent as to
make it a bill under which there would
be injustice to the public. We will not
be able to have any drainage iegisla-
ton that will not work some injustice
in individual cases. or work hardship
on persons for the benefit Of the pub
lie. In regard to THE legality of a bill
must not merely have doubts about 1t
but must be convinced beyond any
doubt that the bill is unconstitution-
AL
There are three points In regard to
the present drainage biz which are not
entirely clear. have always doubted
we could under the Iowa con-
stitution make any Jaw for drainage
that is constitutional. Ostensibly this
pretends to take private property for
public use; in fact 1t Is taking private
for the reclamation of land.
doubt not court would be justified in
ignoring the legislative assertion
as to the purpose of the law and MAX
Ing inquiry as to the real purpose of the
law. Then there is the question OF the
cost of Improvement / shall want to
know whether it would be possible to
construct a drain under the law at
cost greater than the benefits to be OBJ
tained This feature must be we'll
guarded In order to prevent injustice.
Then there is the most difficult ques-
ton of all. that relating TO the damages
and payment Of the same. Judge Oliver
contends that 1t is an i1npossibility to
determine in advance what the damage
win be TO property along the drains,
that the only way to determine the
determine what will be the result. If
This is true. then, since under the Iowa
the damage must be paid
in advance. no law can be made that
will meet the requirements of the con-
stitution and OF Justice
1t was along this line that discussion
If the drainage bill pro o,eeded. and it
indicates clearly the legal obstacles In
The way of the law when it gets into
lhe courts, as 1T mu t.
An interesting phase of the matter
vas developed by delegation of farm
ars from the Missouri border, who came
% protest against the bill. They re-
presented that the bill would be very
oppressive to them and further would
,ause trouble down in Missouri. They
i've along the Charlton river and eff
orts have been made to secure ditch
ix miles long to drain 800 or 400 acres
If land owned in Illinois. They have
ought it thru the courts at great ex
,ense and beat the men who favored
he ditch. Now they fear that the new
aw will reopen the whole Question.
Their claim was, however. that under
he new law they would have no way of
preventing the building of the ditch
md that it would place il in the hands
# one man to impose a heavy expense
,pon land not benefited at all. Worse
han that a ditch built there would
ause "A great overflow OF bottom land
n Missouri and the residents of that |
tate would go into courts and make
rouble If It was attempted. The gov
rnor pointed out that it was in the |
'ower of the board of supervisors to
'eto the schemes of persons who would |
hus impose on others. He regarded the |
natter as q condition affecting only one |
,lace In the state and not to be consid-