PURCHASE OF TOLL ROADS.
Mr. Hillgass' bill [S. 48] providing for the appraisement, purchase and convertment of toll roads into free roads, was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, disliked to oppose any measure of this kind, but did not believe this bill would meet the wishes of its author or its friends; Under former laws citizens owning adjoining land were assessed heavily for building roads, and some roads constructed never have paid a dividend. The proposition now is to reassess these very same lands for the purchase of these roads. This is manifestly unjust. The bill also provides that a majority of these landholders shall first petition for the purchase, thus making the bill in-operative and ineffective, because you can not procure the petition of these men to assess themselves. He favored a bill to allow the purchase of gravel and Other toll roads and their conversion into free roads.
Mr. HILLIGASS insisted the reference to an old law inoperative was not pertinent to this bill. That is no reason why the proposed bill should not be practicable. This bill has had the careful consideration of some of the best lawyers in his District. If the people along the line of pike, within the limit of three miles, are willing their page: 168[View Page 168] real estate should be taxed for its purchase, surely no one should stand in the way. He cited instances where farmers pay more than four or five years than the assessment on their land would be to purchase the road and convert it into a free gravel road. The limit to payout these bonds under the bill is ten years. It applies to all land within a mile and a half on either side, and within the beginning and the terminus of the line.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, also hoped the bill would pass. It affects no law concerning gravel roads now on the statute books. In his County there is a six mile road from the County seat which the people desire to connect with another road and convert this toll into a free gravel road. For this and other reasons he hoped this measure will prevail.
Mr. VAN VORHIS feared that under this bill non-paying roads would have an advantage in selling non-productive roads to County Boards and thus make the land alongside pay twice-once for the original construction, and then again for the purchase of the same roads. He objected to this double assessment as not fair or just.
Mr. HILLIGASS saw no argument against the passage of this bill in what had been said. Where owners of land are wiling to encumber their real estate to purchase gravel roads running alongside the Legislature should not object.
Mr. HENRY objected to this bill in Section 2 where it provides for a wrong system of appraisement. As has been said frequently such stock is literally worth nothing in the market. The bill provides the assessment shall be at what it would cost to build the road, while the stock in the market may be worthless.
Mr. HILLIGASS: You forget the fact that if the owners and purchasers agree on a price it is a matter entirely with them.
Mr. HENRY: That is the difficulty. There may be ten men living along the road who have bought up the stock at ten cents on the $100, and under this bill they would take out the pockets of their neighbors what it would cose to out the road there. The assessment should be the value of the stock.
Mr. SPANN thought the Senator from Madison [Mr. Henry] had the wrong theory. He favored the bill.
Mr. FOULKE: The theory advanced by the Senator from Henry is undoubtedly correct, but the bill provides the case value of the road is to be determined. In determining the rent of a house not rentable for a percent, on the cost of construction it would not be valued at the cost of putting it up; and so it will be with assessments made under this bill.
Mr. VAN VORHIS moved to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the bill.
This motion was rejected by yeas, 3; nays, 33.
Mr. FOULKE moved to recommit the bill to a Committee of One, with instructions to strike out the words "bridges and culverts," and "provided that the finding of the Court shall be final." There is no more reason why the finding of the Court should be final in this case than in cases where any other equitable relief is asked.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. CAMPBELL explained, while he desired some such measure should receive the approval of the General Assembly there were inequitable provisions in this bill which compelled his negative vote.
The bill failed to pass for want of a Constitutional majority-yeas, 21; nays, 18.
