Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-12-26

|
assessed for DR.
"Thic case presents one that Is
somewhat peculiar in its character, on
account of the class of property In
volved in the assessment. 1t has to
be conceded that it would not be fair
to compare the railroad cofnpany's
right Of way and roadbed with farm
property, because they are of a differ
ent class, and different character. and
put to different uses. The profits from
the two are different in character, and
the result of a different class of use
and of different character and class
of labor.
Hence we find ourselves situated in
this case with a piece OF property sep
arate and distinct from all other kinds
Of property in the district; more near
! ly like a public highway, yet there is
no comparison to be made as between
a public highway and a railroad right
of-way and roadbed in the use to
which they are put. The interest that
the public has is a private interest.
I 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 prop
erty in the district, half Of what it was
made by the commissioners, making it
practically the same as d read district
in Hamilton county. But when 1 re-
vowed that proposition in my mind l
could NCG no reason assigned that was
satisfactory to myself that that was,
or would De, the proper thing to do,
because there is no substantial excuse
>Ar
l. :S q breaking away from the report
- ihe original tribunal in this mat
;sr, IS 70 how much the plaintiff
should bear of the burden of this dis
.-ici. without any evidence to sustain
hat conclusion
Ihere IS q question involved in all
q these public inproveme nts that has
not oeen discussed. l an not able TO
determine whether cur supreme court
HaS passed on the props sition, or if
TIE supreme court have passed on it
what the decision may have been. That
IS N connection with the advantages
tHa' the Improvement of a particular
locality, so far as the farming dis
sT.ct IS concerned, is to the railroad
C hs2any, and whether these advan-
ages being special in their character.
can De considered in assessing benefits
1or pubic Improvement.
the party VINO has been
assessed says that it IS matter that
can not be considered. vc- Vol, f,r.,
il. this case that weqt up from, tar
DIN county which was reported in the
li6 Iowa, page SIS, the supreme cour,
holding that the party couldn't be
heard TO say that he wasn't benefited
by these matters. public in their char
acter. such as the Improvement of the
highway, the removal of stagnant wat
er' and matters of that kind. Yet these
men. who are in the district, are not
oenettted any more. ordinarily, by
these matters than those who live
just over the line in some other ad-
Joining territory. When YOU come 20
farm property. it is benefited by a
Withdrawal of water from it on the
theory that it will be more productive.
and, as result, be worth more On
the market
II the farm property around this To-
cality where their drainage district is
to be established is made more prouuc-
tive, and, as a result, should bear the
expense Of this Improvement ir c.r-
tain equitable proportion. every sane
man knows that the result of increas-
ing the productiveness of the farm pro-
perry around kamrar will increase the
productiveness of the railroad company
and roadbed. because, as this freight
traffic is increased and the number Of
passengers are increased. the income OF
the railroad company is increased And
it is special benefit to the railroad
company. that no other person or body
of persons receives None of you seem
to have taken this matter into consid
Grafton, and the matter has not been
presented to me in the argument
assume that the attorneys for the plain
tiff would contend that it was too spec
ulative in character to be given any
consideration. My judgment Is, that
the proposition is a new one. to some
extent, at least new in giving weight
in determining how much the plaintiff
company should contribute towards the
Improvement.
THE railroad company would never
push line out across q territory unin-
habited. and not settled up, and invest
vast sums of money, for which they
can receive not return except as the
people follow the railroad up, and thru
the increased productiveness of the
of the tonnage and of passenger traffic,
to recompense them for their invest
ment And 1t is legitimate for them to
consider the question that naturally
comes back to the question Of revenue
matters Why shouldn't that be ali
element to be considered in de.ermin-
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 c!c
ment which must determine what
proportion the farm property must
| bear?
"I assume that if it should be shown
conclusively, that the farm had not in
creased in productiveness, and could
| not be increased in productiveness by
an Improvement Of this character. 1t
would be conceded that it ought not to
bear any 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 neighbour
hood. 1 am not passing upon that
question, but / speak Of 1t as mat
ter, it seems to memo matter
| whether the courts have ruled for or
against it-that is entitled to be
| considered.
1.-The railroad company certainly
| would not be inclined to start and
operate its line thru a country that
was all swamp, or end in a country