The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1909-04-23

Lying Immediately north of
Bottineau county in the prov
ince of Manitoba is the rural
municipality of Arthur. This
municipality adopted a bylaw
permitting the construction of
said drain in it's territory in ac-
cordance with the survey and
plans adopted by the defend
ants. Other conditions of the
bylaw will be considered later
in this opinion. Plaintiffs at
torneys admit that our statute
permits the extension of drain
below the outlet named in the
petition, a reasonable distance
The phrase reasonable dis
tance' as used in this connec-
ton is relative term; it must
depend on surrounding circum-
stances. It seems to me that
the extension of the drain only
a sufficient distance to give it
enough fall to make it serve the
purpose for which it was in
tended is not unreasonable.
The surface of the topography
of the country in the neighbor-
hood of the drain is such that
proper outlet could not be
found at any point nearer the
one designated in the petition
than the outlet selected by de-
PENDANTS. l hold against the
plaintiffs on this point.
Third. 1t is also contended
by plaintiffs counsel that de-
PENDANTS have proceeded con-
trary both to the fundamental
law and to the statuatory pro-
vision by which they are con-
trolled. [ think this point, is
we'll taken.
The basis of the right to re-
quire the owner of property
benefited by a drain, construct
ed for the public good or well
fare, to contribute to the entire
cost thereof, ratably with all
other owners of property bene-
fitted, in proportion to the indi-
vidual benefits received, has
been placed by the courts up
on different grounds. The fun
damental reason probably is
that the consent of the citizens
to the formation of government
includes his consent to share in
the expense of drainage for the
public welfare. Equality and
uniformity of burdens upon the
people, as near as possible, are
principles lying at the very
foundation of our government.
No citizen can be burdened for
the benefit of another if that
other does not bear his share of
the burden. 1t is a maxim with
us that He who reaps the ben
eft should bear the burden" "
This principle is recognized by
the law under which the pro-
ceedings under con sideration
in this action were carried on.
See sections 1926, 1881. 1886,
revised codes, 1901. These Sec
tions expressly require that all
property benefited by a drain
shall be assessed. The drain
age boards of the counties cf
McHenry and Bottineau, who
are the defendants in this ac-
ton, have ignored the just and
equitable rule referred to and
are proceeding g. directly contrary
to the statutory provisions
above cited. The bylaw ad-
opted by the municipality of
Arthur and the contract en-
tered into by the officers of that
municipality and the defend
ants both expressly recite that
a large pumber of acres of land
adjacent to the drain in Arthur
will be benefited by it's con-
struction, but that the entire
cost of it's construction and
maintenance shall be borne by
the property benefited which
is located in McHenry and Bot
tineau counties. If it were at
tempted to make the land in
McHenry county pay the entire
cost of constructing the drain
and charge no part to the land
in Bottineau county admittedly
benefited, no one would think
that such a proceeding could be
upheld. Masters v. city of
Portland (Oregon) Pac. $40.
The fact that a large portion of
the land benefited by the drain
is located across the interna-
tional boundary line cannot
altar the principle.
Again, both the bylaw and
contract before referred to DrO-