506 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



can then easily be made a matter of record. On the day of the hearing the 

 board of supervisors, acting as a court, can increase, diminish or annul the 

 apportionment made in the report. There is, however, one provision in 

 this section 12 of the act which, on first reading seems a little peculiar. It 

 is this: "But in no case shall it be competent to show that lands assessed 

 would not be benefited by the improvement." This provision is by some 

 assailed on the ground that it is unconstitutional, but it is not. The assess- 

 ment for benefits is not made until after the district has been established, 

 and the establishment of the district is an adjudication that every acre of 

 land in the district will be benefited by the improvement. The legislature 

 has a right to say that every piece of land within the drainage dis- 

 trict is benefited just as it has a right to say that all lands within one hun- 

 dred and fifty feet of a sewer in a city are benefited. In the case of Paulsen 

 vs. Po7'tland, 149 U. S. , 30, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United 

 States that the determination of a territorial district to be taxed for the con- 

 struction of a sewer is within the legislative discretion. In the case of J & 

 A. McKech7iie Brewing Company vs. Canandaigua, 44 N. Y. Sup., 417, it 

 was decided that a statute, authorizing a village to construct sewers and as- 

 sess the expense upon the property owners adjoining, and along the line of 

 the sewer, concludes the question whether or not such owners are benefited 

 by the improvement. In the case of French vs. Barber Asphalt Paving 

 Company, 21 Supreme Court Reporter, 630, decided by the Supreme Court, 

 it is said when the determination of lands to be benefited is intrusted to com- 

 missioners, the owners may be entitled to notice of hearing and upon the 

 question of whether their lands are benefited and how much, but the legis- 

 lature has the power to determine by statute that lands which might be ben- 

 efited by the improvement are in fact benefited, and if it does so, its 

 determination is conclusive upon the owner and the courts, and the owners 

 have no right to be heard upon the question of whether their lands are bene- 

 fited or not, yet only upon the validity of the assessment and its apportion- 

 ment among the different parcels of the class which the legislature has 

 conclusively determined to be benefited. In the case of Allerton vs. Mo- 

 nona County ^ 111 Iowa, 560 the Supreme Court of Iowa has said that the 

 provision that "it shall not be competent to show that the lands assessed 

 were not benefited by the improvement" pertains exclusively to the remedy 

 and is applicable, although a statutory provision, in force when the tax was 

 levied, authorized the property owner to show that his property was not ben- 

 efited by the improvement. This holding is reiterated in the case of Oliver 

 vs. Mono7ia County.^ 117 Iowa, page 57. 



Again, it would be hard to conceive of a piece of land in a drainage dis- 

 trict which would not be benefited by the bettering of the surrounding 

 roads, the doing away with marshes on the adjoining lands, and in many 

 other ways. In the case of Soadyvs. Wilson, 3 Ad. and El, page 249 (Eng- 

 lish case), it is said: "It is not necessary that the benefits should be direct 

 and immediate to justify an assessment. Not only may collateral or indi- 

 rect benefits be considered, but future possibilities may also warrant the 

 levying of an assessment in some instances. Every one whose property 

 derives a benefit from the construction of sewers may be assessed. The 

 benefit may be indirect as by the approaches and neighboring public high- 

 ways, being properly drained and cleansed, the property itself being so 



