Jasper County Democrat, Volume 5, Number 49, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 March 1903 — IROQUOIS IMPROVEMENT. [ARTICLE]

IROQUOIS IMPROVEMENT.

Please put this notice in your pocket book. Study well each question asked and report in person or in writing your view on each. We will meet at one o’cloek P. M. in the east Court Room on Saturday, March 28, 1903, to hear your views: 1. Did you not on September 5, 1902, become a part owner of the located lower, middle or upper main; the Pinkamink, Gifford, Davisson, Yeoman, McCoy, Possum Trot or Hopkins laterals or the Warne, ’Kurrie, Thompson or Kent spurs? 2. Did not the county then become a part owner, sole agent and sole creditor of each of said improvements until its special fund is secured? 3. Ought not the Board in order to secure the county’s credit declare in favor of charging to the improvement the actual expense of the two underpaid viewerß’not exceeding a certain sum per day for joint, field and office work? 4. Ought the county to extend a credit to either of said improvements for any item not endorsed by all the viewers in their report showing a joint service and expense? 5. Ought not the Board furnish an account book and the Auditor in said book keep a separate account with each of said improvements? 6. Ought not the viewers report seperate apportionment for letting, construction, levy, sale of bonds and repair, for each lateral and spur as well as for the lower, middle and upper main? 7. Ought not the viewers to act as a body in preparing and filing their report as to each improvement, before receiving any further pay? 8‘ Ought not the viewers as their last field work, make a careful level for each of said improvements? 9. Is it not the duty of the county to protect its credit and promote a speedy letting of the work for construction ? 10. Ought not each friendly owner of the improvement aid the viewers and Board to secure a speedy report? 11. Ought not the viewers report a seperate estimate for the top and bottom of the earth work so that the surface may be removed before the stone channel is completed? 12. Ought not the taxing district of each improvement include all tributary lands? 13. Are not fall created, carried up and the right to use existing fall, proper elements of special benefit? The upper and lateral fall is greater and a change of grade will cause a fill. This fill should be removed by the proper taxing district. These words are in the statute, “No lands lying below shall be assessed for the benefit of lands lying above.” Sec. 18. We are part owners of each improvement to which our lauds are tributary. We want the best work for the least money. We should consider construction and repair together, for the statute says that the cost of repair “shall be divided pro-rata according to the original assessment of benefits.” Sec. 22. The main thing of value is an adjudged sufficient outlet. Sec. 1. Under this statute, the county should have, on September As the improvements are let the county must furnish a special tax duplicate. Sec. if. When the improvements are made the county must furnish a complete record. Sec. 24. The county must bridge the improvement, Sec. 20. The oounty must own a proper share of each improvement. Sec. 2. The county must credit the ordered improvement. Sec. 25. Each of ns should aid the board and viewers to quickly reach right conclusions, Necessity controls the letter of the statute and no allotment need be made of the lower and middle main nor the Pinkamink, Gifford or Yeoman laterals. Sec. 3. Tal giving this notice the committee has by questions and statements opened the matter for your best thought ana judgement. We ought to select counsel to speak for our common interest, as the qgjißty will, to protect its credit, charged to us. Sec. 27. Don’t throw this notice aside, but by pen or tongne answer for the benefit of all eaoh of the queries. Address letters to J. C. Harris, Rensselaer, Indiana.

March 12,1903.

COMMITTEE.