58 Bl'LLKTIN 1207, V. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE. 
upon which the, court must rule. First, that the total benefits will 
exceed the total costs: second, that the individual assessments and 
benefits arc in the same ratio as the total costs and total benefits. 
Every court, in considering contested assessments, must consider 
both benefits and assessments as evaluated in dollars and cents, as 
that is the only way we can measure value. It is therefore logical 
for assessors to use that medium in determining benefits and assess- 
ments that will be called for when their assessments are questioned 
in court. 
Again, this method is simple and can be readily explained. This 
is an important consideration; for, as has been said, an assessment 
not thoroughly understood by landowners is liable to be attacked, 
and the lack of such understanding may be the cause of large and 
needless expense to the district. Under some methods of apportion- 
ing costs the only information given to the landowner at the time 
of confirming the apportionment besides a statement that benefits 
will exceed costs, is that his land has been classified at v * 7<> per cent," 
or that he has " 10 acres in Class A, 20 in Class B," or the like. 
The owner requires more information than that, to know whether 
or not the project will be profitable for him, and he is rightfully 
entitled to full information as to both his benefits and assessments 
while there is yet time for him to object to his apportionment, 
should he so desire. Any drainage improvement that should be 
constructed must be able to show a total benefit much greater than 
the total cost, and the profitableness of the undertaking can best be 
shown by reporting actual individual benefits and assessments to 
the landowners, and to the court, at the time the apportionment 
comes up for confirmation. This method presents clearly these 
necessary, fundamental facts. 
This method is theoretically applicable to all drainage districts 
and under all conditions, since every kind and all degrees of special 
benefits affect the value of the property. It is practically applicable 
to many different conditions and is more universal in its application 
than other methods in use. Under some conditions, however, it can 
not be used. The principal one is where the amount of the benefit 
is so small in comparsion with the value of the property that it can 
have no appreciable effect upon the value. Assessments against 
railroads, highways, and municipalities when assessed as a whole, 
fall into this class. There are. also, instances of indirect benefits, 
or of benefits as a matter of law. which belong to this class. These 
exceptions, because of the elements which make them exceptions to 
this method, are likewise exceptions to most other methods of making 
assessments. 
While this method is theoretically almost perfect, its use presents 
some difficulties. To those accustomed to formulas and to the ana- 
lytical determination of benefits, fixing the amount in a lump sum ap- 
pears to be full of dangers. Accustomed to systems which confine 
the judgment of the viewers, they fear that the full play allowed by 
this method will result in inaccuracies. The fact that this method 
has been used successfully for years in several States under a variety 
of conditions, shows that such fears are groundless. Beyond ques- 
tion, the intent of all the statutes is to leave the determination of 
the benefit- to the judgment of the assessors, and any method which 
