Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 96, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 August 1902 — From B. J. Gifford, [ARTICLE]

From B. J. Gifford,

The Eminent Doctor of Drainage and ~ Digger of Ditches, Writes About the Iroquois Ditch. Kankakee, 111., July 25,1902, Editor Rensselaer Republican, My Dear Sir: I notice in your recent issues quite a little about the improvement of the Iroquois river in Jasper county, and for the benefit of those concerned I wish them success. But you doubtless remember that a project was started with the same end in view some ten years ago or more which was a failure. I think the main cause of the failure at that time was the fact it was based upon a 'wrong principle ani suspicion the case to be the same, at the present time. There is a sort of vague idea prevailing that any land owner who may have land, the waters from which will dram through a certain channel is under some obligations to pay something towards any improvement of such channel. Ido not think this is correct, but rather think that the right to levy special tapes upon the benefits conferred to such property. And unless such improvements should carry with it speoia, benefits there is no right to levy special taxes.

If the fact that the surface water running from a certain piece of land through a natural water course imposes a liability to pay for an improvement of such water course then the principle extended would make land owners liable to contribute to any improvement of the Mississippi river. I think the law is that any land owner has got an absolute right to the natural surface flow of water from his land. In other words, that they all purchase their land subject to natural conditions. And that where an improvement is sought to be made in a natural water course no one can be required to contributed thereto, except those who may be benefited thereby. And that no one can be benefitted by such improvements unless the same will facilitate the flew of water on and from his land. And to illustrate this point I might say that where there is a dam in a river no laud owner who may have lands lying above such dam could be benefitted by reason of any improvements <of inch river below such dam. It is not true that a large portion of Jasper county will be benefitted by the improvement of the Iroquois river, but the benefits will necessarily be confined to a small area of land lying above the ledge of rocks at Rensselaer, which is now being injured by reason of the overfl >w of the Iroquois above that place. It is more than likely that if a small channel was cut through tnis ledge of rocks here would be little or no overflow of the river above, as this ledge of rook does not extend far, as thera is a fall over it of something like 13 feet, it would not nvolve a large sum of money*

It would not benefit a large area of lands, but only the valley lands, of the Iroquois, which valley is narrow, but which is bounded on either side by a very large area (the waters from which drain into and through such valley), but which lies from ten to fifty feet higher than such valley land. It is more than likely that any land owner actually benefitted would be willing to contribute his full share toward the cost of such work. But it is also more than likely that any land owner who may be assessed for this work whose lands are unaffected thereby for the reason that the flow of the surface water thereon or there-

from will not be accelerated by such work Will doubtless resist tuch payment. Special taxes without special benefits have been declared illegal by the Supreme Courts of several states. And the right to levy such taxes rests upon the amount of bmefits conferred, and not upon the amount of water contributed. Yours truly,

BENJ. J. GIFFORD.