The weekly true Democrat. (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1905-1912, 1906-03-16
EVERGLADES CASE
~ STATED FAIRLY.
Both Sides Of This natter Now HiAds
Public.

Prom Jacksonville Metropolis. l0th.l
A Gigantic Problem-O Objections by OPP
ponents TO This State Proposition
The Administration Defense ndi-
cations Point to a Depletion Of the In
ternal Improvement Fund, as Scheme
Will Cost Somebody $40, 100000
The Importance of the case argued
recently before Judge Locke, sitting in
chancery, as United States Circuit
Judge, and decided in favor Of COM
plainants, to the people of Florida is
not properly appreciated, knowledge of
It being limited to occasional references
to its progress in the press as bust
ness proposition, it claims the earnest
attention of our people.
The formation of an immense drain
age district, 40 miles long and averag-
ing 80 miles broad, comprising all of
Dade county, all Monroe county on the
mainland, nearly the whole of st. Lucie
county, the greater part of Lee county,
the east half of DeSOtO county, and the
lower end of Osceola county, and the
imposition of a special tax OF 5 cents
per acre on all private lands within the
boundaries of the district, except an in
significant strip on the east coast bor-
dering on the railroad, the whole district
containing 1000, 900 acres, of which
about one-half are owned by private
interests, and the scheme having for its
object the reclamation of the Ever
glades, piece of property Of problem
atical value, containing 500. coo acres
and belonging to the State, 10 an affair
Of considerable magnitude
The project i a gigantic one, and
may well be reckOned among the first
class engineering schemes of the day
The issues involved in the present case
Aare Of immense interest to the people
Of the entire State of Florida, who
must eventually pay through taxation
the cost OF the States proportion OF
this drainage.
The complainant, the Southern States
Land and Timber Company, owns over
LOCO, 900 acres within the district, upon
which the special tax amounts to over
$53, 900 in addition to the ordinary county
and State taxes, amounting to 81, 600.
WHY ACT WAS ATTACKED.
The act was attacked on several con-
stitutional grounds, the most important
of which are:
That the Legislature could not dele
gate its taxing powers to an administra-
tive body.
That the act does not give the prop
erty owner any hearing upon the ques-
ton whether his property will be bene-
fitted by drainage.
That the act attempts to exempt
State property from the payment of the
tax, when the main object of the act is
to benefit the States lands.
That the act is special legislation di
rected against certain class Of prop
erty.
That the act fixes no time limit to the
tax.
The operation of the act is also at
tackled on several grounds:
That the drainage commissioners
failed to give the property owners any
hearing upon the question of their prop
erty being benefited or not.
That the drainage commissioners have
formulated no comprehensive plans nor
estimates Of the cost Of the completed
work.
That they omitted to tax the State
lands within the district.
That there is no provision in the law
defining exactly for what purpose this
tax is levied or to what it shall be APP
piled, nor have the board in their pro-
eeedings determined exactly to what
Purpose it shall be applied when collect
ed. This tax is not paid over to the
State Treasurer, and there is no pro-
vision for auditing or accounting for
the expenditure of this money.
WHAT CoMPLAINANTs CONTEND
The compliments contention as to
the facts is that they are practically be-
ing deprived of their property for the
reason that they do not know what the
plans of the drainage commission are or
how much they will cost or for how
many years they will be subject to the
extra tax, the maximum amount of
which is 10 cents per acre indefinitely.
Consequently, they are unable to sell
their lands, as no one will buy them un-
der such an indefinite and uncertain
state of affairs. They also assert. and
support the assertion by mass Of ex-
pert testimony, from all the leading
civil engineers and surveyors and timber
and land experts Of South Florida, that
only the upper portion Of the Ever
Rlades is worth reclaiming, the lower
part being not worth the cost Of recla.
nation; that the cost Of retaining this
upper arrable part will be in the neigh
borhoOd of SIC. 200, 900. That no scheme
will succeed that does not, in addition
to drainage, also provide an effective
sYstem of irrigation, as experience has
sh6wn that these muck lands, IL not ca
rnbie Of being irrigated and IL not pro-
tected by water, become too dry at
~ - n - A