32 BULLETIN 1207, I'- S. DKL'AKT.MKNT OF AGBICULTTTBE. 
upon the plaintiti's' property by the city was for the purpose of 
paying off an assessment for a benefit, which, as far as the plaintiffs 
weYe concerned, was a general one. bat, as between the drainage 
district and the city, was a special benefit to the city as a whole. 
RAILROAD ASSESSMENTS. 
All States have clauses in their drainage laws authorizing the 
assessment of railroads for drainage benefits and providing methods 
of determining, levying, and collecting such assessments. 
The majority of State drainage laws require that the assessments 
shall be in proportion to the. benefits derived, and a number specify 
that only physical benefits to track and roadbed shall be considered, 
while others declare that the benefits received by a railroad are of a 
different nature from those accruing to agricultural lands. Most 
agree that when, in the judgment of the authority which has the 
power to establish the drainage district, a railroad will receive some 
benefit from the proposed improvement, it should be included in the 
drainage district. 
The Supreme Court of Minnesota has held that the right of way of 
a railroad company paying a gross-earnings tax in lieu of all taxes 
and assessments is exempt from assessment for drainage benefits. 
The courts have held that it is not competent for a railroad to claim 
exemption after it has been properlv included in a drainage district. 
In Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Monona Co., L22 X. W. 
820, the Iowa Supreme Court says, in part : 
The inclusion of the property within the boundaries of the district is. as We 
have hereinbefore held, an exercise of legislative power which the courts can not 
review or set aside (authorities cited). But the courts may, and when their 
jurisdiction is properly invoked will, review the assessment or apportionment 
of the cost of the improvement, and. if inequitable or unjust, apply the appro- 
priate remedy. 
In determining the amount of benefit received the first question 
is: Shall the railroad lands be assessed on the basis of agricultural 
lands, or shall the benefits to the railroad property be considered? 
Assuming that the land occupied by the road will be made agricul- 
turally more productive by the proposed drainage, also that the rail- 
road company will be able to carry on its business more cheaply or 
better, which benefit shall be used as the basis for the assessment? 
The common procedure is to consider railroads and highways sub- 
ject to assessment on a different basis from agricultural lands, be- 
cause the railroad property is used for business quite different from 
agriculture and the resulting benefits are different in kind and 
amount. 
It is not uncommon to find districts where railroad rights of way 
are assessed on the same basis as agricultural lands, sometimes at the 
same rate per acre; but, in other instances, the rate per acre i^ made 
from two to twenty times the assessed rate for adjacent farm lands. 
This method is rapidly becoming obsolete, and is not to be recom- 
mended. It has been prohibited by most laws which usually stipu- 
late that railroad and highway assessments shall be made separately. 
The courts of most States generally have held such assessments 
illegal, but in a few States have held the contra rv. 
