In re Hegne-Hendrum Ditch No. 1.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 1094,80 Minn. 58
• Parties: In re HEGNE-HENDRUM DITCH NO. 1.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

80 Minn. 58

82 N.W. 1094

In re HEGNE-HENDRUM DITCH NO. 1.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 29, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Norman county; William Watts, Judge.

In the matter of the construction of Hegne-Hendrum Ditch No. 1. Petition by Iver Lien and others against the board of commissioners of Norman county. Verdict for defendants. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Chapter 97, Gen. Laws 1887, being an act providing for the drainage of wet and swampy lands in the interests of the public health, convenience, and welfare, held valid as a proper exercise of the police power.

2. Said chapter was not repealed by implication by chapter 98, Gen. Laws 1887. Both scts were intended by the legislature as independent statutes.

3. If the subject of an act of the legislature, as stated in the title, be sufficiently broad and comprehensive to indicate the general character and purpose of the act, there is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement that the subject of each act of the legislature shall be expressed in its title.

4. The title to chapter 97, Gen. Laws 1887, aforesaid, held a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.

5. It is competent for the legislature, in the enactment of laws providing for public improvements in the interests of the public health, comfort, and convenience, to provide that the cost and expense of such improvements be assessed against lands benefited and improved thereby, and chapter 97 aforesaid is not open to the objection that such assessment is unequal taxation. H. Steenerson and W. E. Rowe, for appellants.

Peter Sharpe and W. W. Calkins, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

This is a proceeding for the establishment and construction of a ditch under and pursuant to the provisions of chapter 97, Gen. Laws 1887. A petition in due form was presented to the board of county commissioners of Norman county, under which due proceedings were had, which resulted in an order laying out and establishing the ditch as therein prayed for. From such order an appeal was taken to the district court, where, after trial by the court and a jury, a verdict was rendered sustaining the action of the commissioners. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, this appeal was taken. The route of the proposed ditch extends through lands devoted exclusively to agricultural purposes, and is some 16 miles in length; its starting point being in the town of McDonaldsville, Norman county, and ending at a point north and west therefrom, near the Red River of the North. The petition alleges, among other things, the following facts: ‘First. That the proposed ditch herein petitioned for is necessary, for the following reasons: (a) That the land for several miles on each side of the proposed ditch, in the townships of Hegne, McDonaldsville, Anthony, Hendrum, and Halstad, in said county of Norman, are fertile farming lands, and largely under cultivation; that in wet seasons, and especially in times of flood on the Wild Rice river, said lands are liable to overflow from flood waters from the Wild Rice river, and from surface waters from the surrounding country, drowning out and destroying the crops of large areas of valuable lands, and rendering such lands practically worthless; that during said wet seasons the water spreads out over a large territory, and in warm weather it becomes stagnant, foul, and polluted, creating a great stench, and becoming dangerous to the health and life of the community residing in the vicinity. (b) That the route of said ditch is practicable, and such ditch will draw off water in wet seasons from a large territory tributary thereto, conducing to the public convenience, health, and welfare. (c) That the benefits to be derived from the construction of such ditch will be vastly greater than the total costs thereof, including any damages that it will be necessary to award by reason thereof.’

The route of the proposed ditch is specifically pointed out and described, and the several tracts of land through which it will extend are given. The existence of the facts so set up in the petition is essential to the right and power of the commissioners to act. That they do exist is established by the verdict of the jury. None of the evidence taken on the trial is returned to this court. Counsel for appellants do not question the regularity of the proceedings or the sufficiency of the evidence. They attack the constitutionality of the law under which the proceedings are conducted, and assign some errors in the refusal of the trial court to give some requests for instructions, which, because the evidence is not before us, are of minor importance. They contend that the statute is unconstitutional upon the grounds and for the reasons (1) that it authorizes the taking of private property for a private use; (2) that it provides for the levy of taxes which are not uniform or based upon the value of the property; (3) that the subject of the act is not expressed in its title; (4) that the act is void, because it is superseded by chapter 98, Gen. Laws 1887. These constitutional objections present the principal questions in the case.

The authority of the legislature to enact drainage laws is derived from the police power, the right of eminent domain, or the taxing power, and is undoubted. 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 223. It is founded in the right of the state to protect the public health, and provide for the public convenience and welfare. The authority is uniformly recognized and sustained by the courts upon one of the three grounds. There is not full harmony as to the grounds on which the laws are sustained; some courts placing the power to enact them upon one and some upon another ground. But all agree in sustaining them when enacted in the interest of the public health, convenience, or welfare. Where the laws have for their object the reclamation of large tracts of wet and swampy lands for agricultural purposes, they are sustained under the right of eminent domain. The fact that large tracts of otherwise waste lands may be thus reclaimed and made suitable for agricultural purposes is deemed and held to constitute a public benefit. When the object is to drain such lands in the interests of the public health and welfare, they are sustained and upheld as a proper exercise of the police power. Bryant v. Robbins (Wis.) 35 N. W. 545;Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, 5 Sup. Ct. 1086, 29 L. Ed. 229. The test as to the validity of such laws is found in the objects and purposes thereof. When for a purely private purpose, they are invalid and unenforceable. The legislature has no power to exercise the right of eminent domain, the police power, or the power of taxation for private purposes; and, unless the act under consideration has for its objects the furtherance of public interests, it cannot be sustained. In all cases where such laws are authorized, the further power and authority to provide for assessing the cost and expense of the improvement against the lands benefited follow as a natural result. The power to so assess the cost of the improvements against lands benefited is a necessary and proper incident to the exercise of the power to make the improvement. And a statute providing therefor is not open to the constitutional objection that it is unequal taxation. For such purposes a county is a ‘municipal corporation,’ within the meaning of the constitution. Dowland v. Sibley Co., 36 Minn. 430, 31 N. W. 517.

Counsel for appellants contend that the act, construed from the standpoint of its title, has for its purpose and object the interests of private individuals, and not the public welfare or convenience. And, further, that, if it be construed as in the interests of the public good, it is void, because no such object or purpose is expressed in the title of the act. The title of the act is as follows: ‘An act to enable the owners of lands to drain and reclaim them when the same cannot be done without affecting the lands of others; prescribing the powers and duties of county commissioners and other officers in the premises, and providing for the repair and enlargement of such drains, and repealing certain acts therein specified, and declaring an emergency.’

1. There can be no question but that the act is in the interests of the public, and for exclusively public purposes. No ditch can be established or laid out thereunder unless...