The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-03-05

Humber
latter Of
ne share
tennessee a
Lhis question,
bears to have
He course instead
ripple and dam
tennessee has al
farther in building
4 Texas, and therefore
afford to treat railway
fshly than can Texas. We
hong to that class, however,
Etend that railway legislation
proper. One of the first princi-
lin view in shaping the course of
AE STATESMAN is obedience to the
CONSTITUTION of our state and Of our
common country, and the former says
very plainly that the legislature 'ehall
pass laws to correct abuses al pre-
vent unjust discrimination and eXtor-
ton in the rates of freight and pas
senger tariffs on the different railroads
! in this state, and shall from time to
/ time pass laws establishing reasona-
BILE maximum rates of charges for the
transportation of passengers and
freight on said railroads. and enforce
all such laws by adequate penalty"
Here is what the constitution directs
and that is our guide. THE STATES
MAN has heretofore approved such
measures and lead in the direction of
what the constitution directs, but when
extreme and unreasonable PROPOSE
lions have been presented they have
been opposed. 1t has approved the
proper supervision Of railways, and
though it was thought the regulation
of passenger rates by the seventeenth
legislature was rather previous, it is
now admitted that it was proper
enough measure, though it has
worked as great hardship on the two
great trunk lines that traverse
western Texas In the direction of
Ell Paso. The measure, in a general
sense, is good, and when there is more
trovel on the roads it will undoubt-
edly work as well to the advantage of
all the roads as to the people.
But the constitution does not provide
for such railway regulation as is con-
templated in a bill now before the
legislature, providing for commits
sion to manage railway bus mess
Constitution makers may make mis-
takes, but it was wisodm, certainly,
when they declared in the states Or
ganic law. what railway regulation
shall be. Besides the constitu-
tional objection to the bill in question,
there is another of itself most absurd.
The commission bill provides that the
tate shall employ three men, at SAL
airy each Of twenty-five hundred dol
lars, to absolutely manage the affairs
of all the railroads of the state. There
are six great railway systems in Texas
besides other railways 1t would
be guessing to say what the cost of
management of all these roads is.
1t is an immense sum, however, and
the railway companies pay no more for
management than they are compelled
to pay to secure experienced and COM
petent officials in their various depart
ments. Management alone costs the
railways of Texas necessarily hun
dreds of thousands OF dollars, and yet
it is proposed that the state shall pay
three men seven thousand five
hundred dollars to manage the roads
to formulate and direct their business,
to do what railway owners find it
necessary to pay hundreds of thous-
ands of dollars for. The commissioners
would necessarily be "cheap Johns
broken down politicians, unable to
make living at anything. II is gross
presumption to think of such
railway control, to say nothing of
the unconstitutionality of the propo-
sition. The predominant sentiment
in the legislature, fortunately, does not
drift in this direction. The house of
the last legislature was opposed to so
unreasonable a proposition, land thesen-
timent in the present legislature is
more positive against it than then.
AT this time, when revival in rail-
way building is beginning, this fact is
fortunate.