Evening Republican, Volume 18, Number 139, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 June 1914 — BERDINE DYKE CASE RULING UPHELD [ARTICLE]

BERDINE DYKE CASE RULING UPHELD

Court Took Case Under Advisement After Trial Lasting Two Weeks In Porter County.v Attorney Hglleek returned Friday evening from Valparaiso, Where he has been for the past two weeks as one of the attorneys for the'remonstrators against the Berdine dyke in Lake and Porter counties. The Berdine dyke petition asked for the construction of a dyke some eight miles in length extending eastward on the ndrth side of the river bom the Gifford railroad dredge at Beech ridge. The greater portion of the proposed dyke would be in Porter county where the petition was filed and where the fight against the construction is being made. Some thirty-five remonstrators ip Porter county are fighting the dyke, while the Northern Indiana Land Co., which has extensive holding® on the south side of the river, is also opposed to the building of the dyke. There are two pertinent objections. One Is the fact that the Marble ditch, the construction of which has been affirmed by the supreme court, will accomplish the drainage of the lands which the dyke proposes to protect, and the lands assessed for the dyke are also assessed for thd Marble ditch. The other reason affects the Hands on the south side of the riyer for. the reason that the diking of the north side will have the effect of throwing all the water to the south and thus overflow large areas of land not covered With water when the, north side of the river gets its share. The lands assessed for the dyke in the sum of $54,000 are also as sessed for the Marble ditch in. the sum of $29,000, and the total assessment is as much as S2O per acre on some of ths land. The dyke petition had’ been circulated on the theory that the Marble ditch was dead, but after the report Was filed the supreme court ruled In favor of the ditch and many of the dyke petitioners had been led to believe that the MarbUe ditch was not to be built. Finding that it was to be built they rose up in large numbers against the dyke construction, and of the large number - who had petitioned for the dyke only a few favor its construction.

The case was, heard by Judge Bartholomew, of the Porter circuit court H. H. Loring, of Valparaiso, appeared for the dyke petitioners, while D. E. Kelley, of Valparaiso; A. Halleek, of Rensselaer; and Schuyler Hulbbell, of South Bend, appeared tor the remonstrators. The case was hard fought and the remonstrators contended that it is the law that the Marble ditch having been established on the engineer's theory that It will give sufficient drainage to the lands, any other assessment looking to accomplish the same result is illegal. Hugh Gamble, who was the engineer for the Marble ditch, and C. J. Hobbs, who is the engineer log the Gifford railroad and 4nlr been interested in a number of dredging propositions in this county, testified for the remonstrators. Another to testify was Morton H. Downey, of Anderson, who made the government survey in 1906, and whose report held drainage feasible. In establishing the Marble ditch the survey made by Downey Was practically followed. His testimony was favorable to the remonstrators, holding that the absorb-' tion qualities of the Soil would take ,hP the water in an ordinary season after the ditch was established and the water line was some Jour feet 'below the surface of the lands. Mr. Hobbs’ testimony proved very Interesting tod The Valparaiso Vldetfce gave the following account of (ft: C. J. Hobbs* a graduate of the surveying department of the university here when it was known by the more humbfe name of the Northern Indiana Normal school, was the star witness this morning. His direct examination began yesterday afternoon by Attorneys HubbeH. Halleek and Kelly, and after they rested this morning Mr. Loring took him through a severe cross-examination. Mr. Hobbs claimed to have computed the velocity and volume of ■water in the Breyfogle dlteh. which will be vacated if (the Berdine dyke wlhe in the present trial. His testi*wn from profiles and off 1901, before the g. fie is the engineer d railroad m* uatr< cto oos is to amusing witness. manner sVs^s,btkSS hte head qn his hand, looked as cool as a cucumber, and took his rim*

thinks.” He admitted that his time was not entirely taken up with the Gifford railroad. Through his description irtook considerable time tor Mr. Loring to locate Kersey, Mr. Hobbs’ headquarters, to his satisfaction, and the railroad itself. The witness had examined the profile and specifications of the Marble ditch, but had not been active in its constructional plane in any way, according to his testimony. “How wide is the Marble ditch bottom at its source?” was one of the questions put toy the attorney tor the petitioners, and the witness made a move to look at a hook at his elbow. Mr. Loring objected instantly. Messrs. KeMy, Halleek and HubbeH protested against their opponent’s action. Hobbs smiled at the quartet and waited calmly. After the hubbub toe admitted that he could not remember everything, and Mr. Loring accused him of not knowing. Then there was some talk about the proposed construction off the -BerdOne ditch, how the level of the water in the Kankakee region might be affected this way or that, according to the future outcome, and for a long time the witness and the attorney parleyed over the volume of water that runs beneath a bridge of the Gifford railroad in a certain place and at certain times of the year. “How much water passes under the bridge?” asked the lawyer, and Hobbs picked up a notebook and began to study it. While he was (apparently all taken up with this, Mr. Loring asked another question concerning a similar phase. The witness studied has book in silence. Another question was put at him, but the man on the stand seemed to have forgotten alt in the perusal of the note book. Then the attorney for the petitioners objected to Mr. HobbsT manner and apparent attitude. 8. O. Hubbell arose and took his witness’ part Hoibbs explained that he was (busy with the first query put to him and had no time for the others tiM that was disposed of. Everybody smiled, even to the judge.

Mr. Hobbs told of the highest water in his experience, which he stated was in the winter. The crossexaminer tried to bring out the admission that it occurred in June, but the witness was firm. Neither would he admit that the Gifford railroad had been the only property that concerned (him as engineer lor Mr. Gifford. He stated that in the 35,000 acres through which the road passes, some hay land was of importance' to him in keeping out the water. The remonstrators are apparently sparing no expense to knock out the Berdine ditdh and dyke. Witness after witness has already been brought In, and some of them are of high standing in the matter of drainage. It is expected that until the dose of this weqk thdr evidence will continue.

Mr. Loring has Engineer Guy Stinchfield at hi# dhow, who seams to know the Kankakee region from A to 2 and often makes helpful jas^ssi^f The three opposing lawyers go in the adaptobfißy 5 on