From the Journal of the House of Representatives,
May 15, 1913 (pp. 2268-2269)
Sir: I herewith return without my approval
House bill No. 117 (file No. 273, enrolled No. 233), entitled
A bill to amend sections 1 and 4 of chapter 2; sections 1,2,3, 6 and 9 of chapter 3; sections 2 and 3 of chapter 4; sections 3 and 10 of chapter 5, sections 2, 6, and 8 of chapter 6; sections 1, 2, and 8 of chapter 7; and section 1 of chapter 8 of Act. No. 254 of the Public Acts of 1897, entitled "An act to provide for the construction and maintenance of drains and the assessment and collection of taxes therefore, and to repeal all other acts relative thereto," approved June 2, 1897, being sections 4310, 3413, 4319, 4321, 4324, 4327, 4341, 4342, 4346, 4353, 4355, 4359, 4361, 4371, 4372, 4378, and 4379 of the Compiled Laws of 1897, as amended, and to add thereto five new sections to stand as sections 2-a, 3-a, 3-c and 6-a of said act.
There are many objections to this bill. The board of supervisors are herein empowered to dispense with the drain commissioner and take his duties upon themselves, thus making it probably in many instances the expense would be very largely increased. In fact, this bill would permit as many drain commissioners in each county as there are drains, and would further increase the expense. A further objection is that the contingent fund of the county would be seriously endangered by the provisions of this bill.
In the bill it is provided that, "at the time and place of letting and before receiving any bids, the county drain commissioner shall have the right, and it shall be his duty to determine whether the whole of the per cent of taxes to be spread for the benefits to land in the construction of such drain shall be assessed and collected in that same year, or whether the same shall be divided into two or more annual installments, one installment to be collected the first year and the other installments annually thereafter not to exceed ten years from the date of such assessment." This would do away with prospective bidders. Bidders would not consider such a proposition.
Other objections might be mentioned, but the three already stated are sufficient.
Woodbridge N. Ferris