34 BULLETIN 1207. r. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
cago & North Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Supervisors of 
Hamilton County. L65 X. W. 390, quoting from the syllabus: 
While all tin 4 benefits resulting to a railroad company's property within a 
drainage district from the drainage improvements must necessarily be con- 
sidered in making the assessment, other benefits resulting to the company or 
ils property because of the improved conditions of land adjacent to the dis- 
trict or because of any other resulting advantages which it enjoys in common 
with the general public are too remote and Intangible to be made a basis of 
levying assessments. 
in referring to assessments based upon " sanitary, esthetic, and 
commercial benefits," the Illinois Supreme Court in ('ache River 
Drainage District /•. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 225 
111. 396, 99 N. E. 635, said in part : 
The Indirect, uncertain, and speculative benefit which may be derived from 
the increase of agricultural production and passenger trattic is not an element 
to be considered in assessing benefits to be derived from drainage. It is the 
direct benefit t<> the railroad as property, and not to the company in its busi- 
ness, which is to be considered. Whatever tends to decrease the expense of 
maintenance of the track and railroad or the operation of trains is a legiti- 
mate subject for consideration, but not the possible increase of business arising 
from the general increase in productiveness and prosperity of the country 
and the community. 
On the other hand, the Alcorn Act, which is one of Mississippi's 
drainage laws, states thai increased revenues to accrue to the rail- 
road shall be considered in fixing the benefits. In a recent case from 
Arkansas, the Circuit Court of Appeals in Thomas /'. Kansas City 
Southern Kv. Co., 277 Fed. 708, said in part : 
The contention that appellant's land was not benefited is of more substance. 
The court found that there were no direct benefits by way of protecting the 
rights of way of appellants from overflow by flood waters, but found that 
there would be resulting traffic benefits through haul of the increased croppage 
on the lands within the district because of overflow protection. It also de- 
termined that such traffic benefit was sufficient to authorize assessment, citing 
St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bridge District, 113 Ark. 496, 168 
S. W. 1066. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently expressly 
decided this traffic benefit as one to be taken into account, when it said in 
the case of Hush v. F.ronson, 251 U. S. 182, 40. Sup. Ct. 113, 64 L. Ed. 215: 
" To this must be added the obvious fact that anything which develops the 
territory which a railroad serves must necessarily be a benefit to it, and that 
no agency for such development equals that of good roads." 
The evidence is that at present only about 10 per cent of the acreage within 
the district is tilled or tillable because of water, but that the wild land is 
rich, and would be cultivated, if protected from overflow; that appellees were 
the only railroad serving this locality. There is the further consideration, 
upheld in the Bush case. 251 U. S. 182, at page 190, 40 Sup. Ct. 113, 64 L. Ed. 
215, thai the legislature, by inclusion of appellees' property within the dis- 
trict, has declared that it is benefited. Under the Bush opinion, in the 
Supreme Court, this would tend to establish the existence of traffic benefits, 
such as would justify assessment for district purposes. 
In connection with the last paragraph of the above opinion, it 
should be stated that the drainage district in the above case was 
created by a special act of the legislature. 
There is no doubt that any increase in the productivity of the 
lands served by a railroad will ultimately increase the revenues of 
the railroad company. We find many railroads giving active aid 
to all enterprises of the farmer, often maintaining a corps of ex- 
perts to assist and advise along the lines of agricultural development. 
Still, increased revenues due to drainage improvement are specu- 
lative in that no one can foretell just how much they will be. Sup- 
