Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1913-12-16
FAR REACHING DECISION
BY JUDGE c. f. ALbRO0k


the 146 Iowa, page SIS, the supreme
court holding that the party couldn't
be heard to say that he wasn't
benefited by these matters, public
in their character, such as the i'm
provement of the highway, the re-
moval of stagnant water, and mat
ters of that kind. Yet these men,
who are in the district, are not ben
efitted any more, ordinarily, by these
matters than those who live just ov-
er the line in some other adjoining
territory. When you come to farm
property, it is benefited by with
drawal of the water from it on the
theory that it will be more product
i've, and, as a result, be worth more
on the market.
If the farm property around this
locality where this drainage district
is to be established is made more
productive, and, as a result, should
bear the expense of this improve
ment in a certain equitable proper
tion, every sane man knows that the
result of increasing the productive
ness of the farm property around
Kamrar will increase the productive
ness of the railroad company and
roadbed, because, as this freight
traffic is increased and the number
of passengers are increased, the in
come of the railroad company Is in
creased. And it is a special benefit
to the railroad company. that no 9TH
er person or body of persons re-
ceives. None of you seem to have
taken this matter into consideration,
and the matter has not been present
ed to me in the argument.--Ias / assume
that the attorneys for the plaintiff
would contend that it was too specu-
lative in character to be given any
consideration. ' My Judgment is, that
the proposition is new one, to some
extent, at least new in giving
weight in determining how much
the plaintiff company should contri-
butte towards the improvement.
The railroad company would new
er push a line out across a territory
uninhabited, and not settled up, and
invest vast sums Of money, for which
they can receive no return except as
the people follow the railroad up,
and through the increased product
iveness of the country, the increased
productiveness of the tonnage and of
passenger traffic, to recOmpense
them for their investment. And 1t
is legitimate for them to consider
the question that naturally comes
back to the question of revenue mat
ters. Why shouldn't that be an ele-
ment to be considered in determin-
ing what would be equitable for this
specific piece of property to bear Of
the expense of an improvement Of
this character, when that is the very
element which must determine what
proportion the farm property must
bear?
assume that if it should be
shown conclusively, that the farm
had not increased in productiveness.
and could not be increased in pro-
ductiveness by an improvement Of
this character, it would be conceded
that it ought not to bear any of the
expense Of the improvement, except
such general advantages as there
might be by way of improvement of
the highway, and the removal Of
stagnant water from the neighbor-
hood. am not passing upon that
question, but | speak of 1t as a mat
ter, it seems to me-no matter
whether the courts have ruled for or
against it-that is entitled to be
considered.
The railroad company certainly
would not be inclined to start and
operate its line through country
that was all swamp. or end in a
country that was all swamp, because
there would be nothing for the rail-
road company to do. 1t would be of
no benefit to operate line across
that kind of country, or into that
kind of a country.
So, we get back to the proposition
that / have been discussing, as in
volved in this case. And l find, in
my thoughts, the suggestion, by way
of reference to public improvements
that this improvement is public
improvement. and on that theory the
supreme court has sustained the law
A railroad company comes alonl
and desires to build a railroad
through the country. They have tn,
fright to pass across mans farm, o.