22 BULLETIN L207, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
other indefinite quantities, arriving ;it the benefit received by each 
tract by analysis, and apportions the costs according to its relative 
benefits. 
The first method directly apportions costs according to benefits. 
Since the measure of the benefit is the increased value of the land, the 
logical step is to determine this increase and apportion the costs ac- 
cording to the total amount of benefit. The process of determining 
the present and the improved values of the land, though requiring the 
exercise of judgment on the part of the commissioners, is simple and 
is easily understood, which is a great advantage when dealing with 
numbers of people. This method will take care of all the factors 
which affect the amount of benefit. Though it is difficult to estimate 
the various factors of benefit in either money or percentages, it is 
comparatively easy to determine their combined effect upon the value 
of the property. In the case of drainage benefits the problem of 
fixing the improved value is easier than in the case of benefits due 
to pavements and sewers, as the value of land after drainage is com- 
parable to the value of high or drained lands in the vicinity. 
In States where the benefits are not evaluated in dollars and cents, 
there are many systems in use for determining the relative benefits. 
The idea behind all is that, since the benefit varies with the physical 
properties of each tract, such properties or factors should be separ- 
ately considered and evaluated. Advocates of such systems argue 
that the result is much more likely to be correct, but they are objec- 
tionable because, by their indefiniteness. they are confusing both to 
the assessing board and to the public and also because injustice is 
bound to result unless true values are placed upon the various factors. 
The position of the courts is that, though the method of reckon- 
ing the increased value of the land is better, they will not prohibit 
the use of some other method so long as it seems fair and is not in 
conflict with the statute. 'The courts are concerned with the amount 
of the assessment rather than with the means used to arrive at 
that amount. 'Die report of the assessors is looked upon in the 
same way as the verdict of a jury. Some courts say that the provi- 
sions of the statute in regard to the methods to be used are advisory 
only. So long as the assessment is not unreasonable the courts will 
not question the methods used by the assessors. However, except 
under exceptional circumstances, and then only upon the advice of 
counsel, the assessors should follow the wording as well as the spirit 
of the statutory provisions. 
THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND ITS DUTIES. 
The drainage laws of each State specify who shall appoint or elect 
the board whose duty it is to make the assessments. As a general 
thing this board is composed of three members, appointed by the 
court or by the county supervisors. In some States it is provided 
that all of the board members shall be disinterested parties; in other 
States ownership of property or relationship to landowners within 
the proposed district is not a bar to service on this board. As far as 
can be judged from a rather wide investigation, there is no advantage 
in having strictly disinterested assessors, as men selected for such 
work are generally above allowing personal interest to influence their 
