TOLL ROADS.
Mr. Hinton's bill [H. R. 449- see page 63, vol. 20] to regulate the toll charges on pikes, macadamized and gravel road-beds ceded by the United States to the State of Indiana, being read the third time--
Mr. FANCHER said that this same bill, or one containing the same provisions, had been before the Legislature in 1877 and again in 1879, and he had quite a distinct recollection of the object of the bill, and it seemed to be about as pernicious a bill as had been before this House during the present session. Under those provisions of this bill the owners of this road would receive only 10 per cent on what the road originally cost before the original owners had expended one cent, which you can see would be next to nothing. It is artfully drawn, and the object is to draw the wool over your eyes, and if passed would effectually confiscate this road to all intents and purposes. What would you think of a bill with provisions that you should be allowed just enough to pay the running expenses of your farms and 10 per page: 140[View Page 140] cent. on what your farm costs you originally--say four years ago. The bill is wrong and ought to pass.
Mr. FLOYD said these road were organized under the law, and they have a right to be protected by the law the same as any other organization. Although the stocks cost them only a nominal figure, they have been to a large expense keeping the road in repair. I am oppose to fixing the toll upon these roads.
Mr. CARTER--This law only applies to what is known as the National Road. It was ceded to the State by the United States. The State gave it to the County, and it was then known as the Central Pike Road Company. It existed until the year 1864. They collected toll. For some reason the Courts decided that the tax of the road had become forfeited; that decision was sustained by the Supreme Court. When that was sustained a new Company was organized which took possession of it under the general law. This Company organized, built a new road, expended money, and it would be nothing more than right to say that they shall charge toll as any other road. The Legislature, I believe has the right to regulate the amount of toll and charges of these roads the same as all other roads. It is the duty of this body to step in between the people and the Company, and say what shall be the toll--and give them a fair compensation. This bill provides that the road shall give an account of what the road cost the present Company, and they shall be allowed to charge a toll equal to 10 per cent. above the cost of operating the road, salon'es repairs, general expense plus 10 per cent. interest upon the cost of the road. It seems to me that this is just.
Mr. WILSON, of Montgomery, said: I shall vote against this bill, because it does not establish the toll of all the roads in the State. Being special legislation upon this subject, I think it would be unconstitutional.
Mr. SCHWEITZER was of the opinion that the Legislature had no right to say to any individual what toll he shall charge upon his road or what profit he shall have on anything else. These parties have a right to collect toll, and he thought the Legislature had no right to discriminate betwe n this particular road and others and say that they shall have a profit of 10 per cent It would be just as competent to say to the farmer, or legislate to that effect, that he shall only be allowed a profit of 10 per cent. upon a bushel of wheat, or any other article of produce.
Mr. BARTLETT said this bill has for its object the accomplishment of that which can never have my approval or support I am opposed to any measure that will take the property of another without giving proper equivalent for it The parties owning this road became possessed of it through honorable means. The title is in them, and being their absolute property, they are entitled to control it. This road belonged to the United States Government, and by them it was ceded to the State. From the State it was ceded to the Companies in the different Counties, the several corporations assuming to do work on the road, and to make certain improvements, all of which has been done. The friends of this bill claim that the stock has been watered but I say that it has been watered only by work done on the road. I hope the bill will not pass.
Mr. RYAN was opposed to the bill for the reason that he did not favor legislation upon the subject embraced in the bill, and did not think the Legislature had any right to regulate the charges upon private property. He thought if the Assembly recognized the corporation as a legal one in the eyes of the law, it should not take the stand as attempted in this bill, to regulate the charges upon such highway.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 13; nays, 73.
