The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1905-11-03

the law to pay anything whatever
for the construction of the ditch,
even though it was benefited Dy
it's construction in any sum large or
small. That the railroad company
their rights OF exemption
from the ibility Of any assessm ent
for tho cost and construction Of the
proposed ditch by reason of havin g
complied with, the provisions Of
III, special Laws Of Minne-
sota for the year 1873, which pro-
vides in substance that any railroad
company owning or operating
line OF railroad in the State of
Minnesota, complying with the
statute and filing it's resolution and
the acceptance of the provisions of
this law and upon the payment an,
nually OF three per cent, of the
gross earnings of such line, such
company should be forever exempt
from all taxation and from all as
eesaments. ~ ~. -.s.s.,.. i. D.
Mr.. Crandall took the position
that this law referred to ordinar =
taxes and assessments and that as
far as the special assessment toward
paying the expense Of the construc-
ton OF this ditch was concerned,
that no such thought was in the
minds Of the legislators at the
time of the passage Of this law OF
1873. That no conditions had arisen
that called upon the legislature to
enact public drainage laws with
the purpose of developing and uti-
lizing the lands of the State OF
Minnesota aside from the increase
financially of the lands and resources
of the state; that there was police
measure and regulation to be con-
sidered that pertained to the
sanitary condition, the public
health, as it were, expressed and
staet forward in our general drainage
law. That the conditions as they
exist at the present time were such
that the continuation Of such
marshes, wet lands and swamps
was injurious to the public health,
they being conductive to i'll health
and a public injury, and that as
the railroad company right Of way
with all it's fill and embankment in. q:
terfered with the drainage Of the
Elakeaor marshes, a great part OF
which was upon the lands Of the
company that, as q sanitary public
police measure, the state is pri-
marily authorized and empowered
to pass just laws compelling the
abatement of such sources Of public
injury and that, within the law up
plicable to the case, there was mani
fest such power and authority.
Mr.. Seymour urged that the case,
State vs Stearns, 72 MINI. 200 was
applicable and with the case, st.
Louis County vs.. D. & I. Ry. Co.,
80 N. w. 626,, control, both of these
cases having appealed from the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court o1
Minnesota to- the United States
Supreme Court where they were
decided in favor of the railroad
companies exempting them from
the proposed taxation on account
of the railroad company paying the
three per cent, gross earnings taA
under the provisions Of the laws OF
this state. =" =" @~~
Mr.. Crandall urged that these
cases were not parallel and did not,
therefore, control by reason Of the
fact that conditions presented in
the two cases decided by. the su'
preme court Of the United States
were different in character and ap
plication from the case Of this ditch
and, in summarizing, remarked
."That the question now before the
court in plain language without
disguise is, can a railroad company
compel the land owners adjacent