The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1910-01-28
MOUSE RIVER DRAIN
HELD TO Be LEGAL
Supreme Court Of North Dakota, in Divided Opinion
Rsvsrsss Judge G. T. Tsmplston.

The supreme court of North
Dakota, in a divided opinion,
has reversed Judge G.. F.
Templeton and held that the
drain commissioners of Botti.
|neau and McHenry counties
acted within their legal rights
in extending the Mouse River
drain into Manitoba and assess.
ing the cost of this outlet tc
the land owners benefited in
the counties of Bottineau and
McHenry.
We understand that the pc
titioners will apply fora re
hearing. IF this is not granted
work on the big drainage pro-
ject will begin in the spring
and the work pushed to com
pletion. It is expected that
it will require two years to
complete the work. Over
25, 600 acres will be reclaimed.
The drainage canal runs
from the northern part of Nc
Henry county and the entire
length of Bottineau county and
fourteen miles into Canada.
The lower court held that it
was unlawful for the commits
sion to spend money raised by
taxation in a foreign country.
but the supreme court holds
that under certain conditions
which existed in the present
case the contention of the low
er court was not right.
The decision Of the supreme
court follows:
In the supreme court, state
| of North Dakota, October term,
1909.
George freeman, ct al.
! plaintiffs and respondents, VS..
John Trimble, ct all, as drain
commissioner of the counties
of Bottineau and McHenry, de-
PENDANTS and appellants.
1. Boards of drain commits
sioners have only such powers
as are expressly conferred by
statue, or necessarily implied
from the powers conferred.
2. In. acting as drain COM
nissioners, a large discretion is
vested in them in assessing
benefits and in. determi ning 6
when outlets for drains may
be secured. and that discretion
will not be interfered with
where power is granted to
them except in the case of
fraud or manifest abuse of such
discretion.
8. Under sections 1921 and
1922, r. G. 1905, as amended
by chapter SO, laws of 1907,
joint boards of drain commits
sioners have power to secure
an outlet to drains established
within their district, in foreign
territory. where a public neces-
sity exists for securing outlets.
4. Where it is necessary to
improve. deepen, or widen the
channel or bed Of a river in
this state in order to drain
flooded lands, and the deepen :.
ing and widening Of such river
| in this state would not be ef-
fectual in draining such lands
without deepening and wide
ming the river bed for about
twelve or fourteen miles after
it passes into Canada, the drain
commissioners have power to
secure a suitable ontlet by inn
proving the river after it passes
Into Canada.
5. In such case, the fact
that the control Of the improve
ment after it's completion is
mot vested in the county com
missioners, but in the council
of the municipality through
which the river passes, in
Canada, by virtue Of a bylaw
LOT said icipality and con
tract between It and the board
of drain com missioners, does
not defeat the right Of the
drain commissio toner's to secure
such outlet by Improving the
river bed. &
6. Section 1929, r g. 1905,
|as amended "A 1907 making il
1 necessary to secure the right q
lway tos land through which
drains IA tllia state q pass. has &C