Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 96, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 August 1902 — Thompson Replies to Gifford. [ARTICLE]

Thompson Replies to Gifford.

Rensselaer, Ind. July 29,1902. Editor of Republican: | 1 note ?• J. (jifford’s letter touching* a drainage project in 1892 of which he WM chief apostle so recorded at his o.7 n quest also a project now before its people for which I have solicited. The county raised its grade and extended its bridge to make travel possible above the dam created by the silt from Mr. Gifford’s high lands. The land owners have patiently suffered said undue flow. The effect has changed bis mind and he now ascertains that his interest in the farm project was a very vague idea and now says. It is not true that a large area will be benefitted but all benefits will be to the narrow swamp itself, because lateral lands lie several feet above such valley land. His threat, that a, : ,tax on any other land but the actual swamp will be resisted, may suit the present position of Mr. Gifford, to obtain something for nothing. If his idea of special benefits, was the law the swamp will never be drained, but happily such is not the law. Before the Supreme Court on Jan. 24, 1899 some gentlemen presented the question whether lands 20 ft higher, and well drained into Bear Creek Marsh, would be benefitted by a ditch through said marsh, and the law is stated in Culbertson vs Knight 152 Indiana 121, 126. Ist' The Legislature had in view something more than the mere drainage of wet lands. P. 123. 2nd. All subjects that affect the value of lands, are special benefits P. 124. 3rd. Whatever will come to land to make it worth more, to rent, sell, or keep, is special benefits P. 124. 4th. The position that high lands are not benefitted, cannot be sustained. „ sth. The owner of higher lands has no right to ditch upon lower lands without helping to provide an outlet. P. 125. 6th. The owner of the lower land may protect his property, by an embankment or by injunction unlessthe drainage law is applied. P. 126. > In this state the right to protect land is more sacred than the claim to hustle surplus water upon a neighbor’s land. If the proposed ditch is made its use will be joint and mutual to those who help and pay for the same. Simon P Thompson.