Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 109, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 October 1909 — REMONSTRANCES GALORE AGAINST THE BIG DITCH. [ARTICLE]

REMONSTRANCES GALORE AGAINST THE BIG DITCH.

Every Conceivable Objection To theConstruction Brought Out By Vigilant Attorneys.

The big Kankakee drainage scheme is being attacked by lawyers who represent remonstrators in both Jasper and Porter counties, and every conceivable objection seems to have been set forth to defeat the drainage petition of Horace Marble, upon which the commissioners recently made their report.

The number of remonstrators so far is not known, but they are coming in at the rate of several dozen a day and practically every lawyer in both counties not associated with the attorney for the petitioner seems to have been retained as counsel against the ditch.

One of the technical objections that will have to be thrashed out and thht is of itself sufficient to defeat the ditch if sustained is the contention that the actual channel of the ditch is not the property of either county, but belongs to either the state of Indiana or the government of the United States. If it does the contention is that the courts would not have jurisdiction but that legislative action by the state or government would be necessary to provide for the changing of the course of the stream. The remonstrance further sets out that as the channel of the river is the boundary line of the two counties and it is proposed to change the course of the stream this would have the effect of changing the boundary line of the two counties and that the court has no jurisdiction to do this. Among the other objections are the following: The report of the drainage commissioners is not according to law. The damages assessed to each separate tract of real estate or easement set out in said commissioners’ report are exhorbltant.

That each separate tract of real estate owned by this remonstrator above described is assessed too much as compared with each and every other tract of real estate and easment as benefited as set out in said report. That each separate tract of land of this remonstrator above described will not be benefited to the extent of the assessment set out in said report by the proposed work if accomplished. That it will not be practicable to accomplish said proposed drainage without an expense exceeding the aggregate benefits. That the proposed work will neither improve the public health nor benefit any of the public highways in said county of Porter, and State of Indiana, or in said county of Jasper. That the proposed work will not be of public utility. That the proposed work as decided upon and reported in the report of the commissioners will not be sufficient to fully drain the land so affected. That said proposed drainage will not be practicable.

The volume of the remonstrances are so great and the substance of them so varied that Judge Hanley will not undertake to hear them until the November term of the court, and to all appearances it would take all the time of a regular session of the court to go over all the objections and hear them argued by about all the legal talent in northwestern Indiana.