Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1913-12-16

way they desire. OF course, the Law
requires that the man shall be com
pensated for his property, but n
more often finds himself in a cOndi
tion where it is of more benefit tt
him to move away rather than live
there on account of the inconven
ience to his property. Yet he is re
quired to submit for the benefit tt
the public.
of such a character that they must
be paid for, yet can't be equitablJ
measured or determined by any evi'
dence as to what this man must dc
or ought to do, or the other man
must do or ought to do.
The Zinzer case, on first flush,
seems to lay down the rule that must
control as to what must be done in
this case. But the ZinZer case,
when it was discussed, simply referr-
ed to farm property, though the su-
preme court there made something
of an argument as reason for sus-
tanning the board of supervisors in
what had been done.
If often occurs that in rendering a
decision the supreme court are not
aways cautious in the use of
language, as to guard the expression
that it might not be construed
against the intent of the party who
makes it in some cases of different
character.
So, when we come to construe the
opinions of the supreme court, we
must determine them with reference
to the finding in that particular case,
or what the member of the court had
in mind, and what was before the
court at that time in arriving at the
opinion. The word Special was
emphasized in connection with the
reading of that opinion. So, it might
be urged against the plaintiff in this
case, by getting back to the other
benefits that I spoke of, though not
referred to, or attempted to be prov
en-, that the increased haulage, or
tonnage in this district itself is Of
SPECIAL benefit to the railroad COM
pany. I assume the court will take
judicial notice of the fact that all
produce of the farmers must be haul
ed, in that territory, by the North
western railroad.
I can't endorse the theory advanc-
ed here by witnesses for the appel
liant, that it is not a detriment to a
railroad company's roadbed, espec-
tally where the fill is not more than
five or six feet high, to have the bot
tom of that fill soaked with water
for months and months, and possib-
ly for a whole year. 1 can't quite
endorse the suggestion of one or two
witnesses that the Northwestern
Railroad Company had not paid out
a cent for the purpose of getting rid
of the water on its right-of-way and
roadbed
/ have frequently observed. when
passing through cuts, that there is
an effort made, always, to cut bitches
alongside the track for the purpose
of allowing the water to. escape. 1t
wouldn't be good railroading if they
didn't make an effort to drain these
swales and swamps.
Very often, when riding along on
the railroad, we find the section men
have cut bitches and channels to let
the water escape. And we sometimes
find the railroad company in a con-
troversy with the adjoining land
owners. because they can't agree as
to what shall be done to allow the
water to escape from the right-of-
way.
If it should be suggested that the
water OH tueSe ldIIuS SuOulu nave
been interferred with, in the place
of it interfering. in such way as to
remove it the interference had been
such as to hold it back, so there
would be a less tendency to remove
the water, l am rather disposed to
the opinion that the plaintiff COM
pany would be here complaining
that it was damage to the railroad
At least that would be within rea-
son and common sense.
| believe that railroad company
would much rather have it's line run
through country where there was
no swamps, sloughs and swales. than
to have its line through country
that was all swamps, sloughs and
swales. That has been my observa-
tion and experience.
l can't say that / am thorough!
satisfied with this assessment. yet
must say that l am as we'll satisfied
with it as would have been if ] hat
decided to cut the assessment dowr