Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1913-12-16
In the Case of the Chicago & North
western Railroad Company
Against Hamilton
County.
INVOLVES A VITAL POINT
Holds That Railroads May be Assess.
ed for Special as Well as
Direct Benefits.

Judge Albrook, sitting upon the
district bench in this city last week,
rendered a decision of far reaching
effect and one that involves some
vital points. Briefly, the judge holds
that in assessing the benefits derived
from drainage the board may assess
special as we'll as direct benefits to
railroads. That is, the assessing
body may take into consideration
the value it is to the railroad to
have an acre of barren or swampy
land converted into productive soil.
That the railroads derive benefit
from such process cannot be sue
cessfully disputed and the Freeman
Tribune is glad that Judge Albrook,
conceded to be one of the ablest jur-
lists in the state, has dissected this
question so admirably and rendered
a judgment which, if sustained by
the supreme courts of the country,
will enable counties to assess rail
roads for drainage upon the basis of
what it is actually worth to the COM
pany in the way of increasing its
business as we'll as in the way OF
benefitting it's roadbed and right-of-
way. The judge delivered an ex-
haustive and Illuminating opinion in
rendering judgment, and among 9TH
er things, said:
This case presents one that is
somewhat peculiar in it's character,
on account of the class of property
involved in the assessment. 1t has
to be conceded that it would not be
fair to compare the railroad COM
pany's right-of-way and roadbed
with farm property, because they
are of different class, and different
character, and put to different uses.
The profits from the two are differ
ent in character, and the result of a
different class of use and of a differ
ent character and class of labor.
Hence we find ourselves situated
in this case with piece of property
separate and distinct from all other
kinds of property in the district;
more nearly like a public highway
yet there is no comparison to be
made as between a public highway
and railroad right-of-way and
roadbed in the use to which they
are put. The interest that the pub
lie has is private interest.
l was impressed at one time with
the idea that, perhaps, it would be a
just conclusion to arrive at, to make
the assessment upon the railroad
property in the district, half of what
it was made by the commissioner
making it practically the same as a
road district in Hamilton county
But when l revolved that PROPOSE
tion in my mind 1 could find no rea-
son assigned that was satisfactory to
myself that that was, or would be
the proper thing to do, because there
is no substantial excuse for it, and
no evidence to sustain it. 1t is q
breaking away from the report OF
the original tribunal in this matter
as to how much the plaintiff should
bear of the burden of this district
without any evidence to sustain that
conclusion.
There is a question involved in al
of these public improvements thai
has not been discussed. am moi
able to determine whether our SUI
preme court have passed on thu
proposition. or If the supreme cour
have passed on 1t what the decision
may have been. That is in connec
tion with the advantages that th'
improvement of a particular local
ity, so far as the farming district Il
concerned, is to the railroad com
uany, and whether these advantages
being special in their character, cal
be considered in assessing benefit
for q public improvement.
Ordinarily the party who has beel
assessed say that 1t is a matter tha
cannot be considered. Yet you nm