The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-02-13
TOLL-ROAOS.
A Vigorous Protest Against Certain Pro-
posed Legislation Regarding Them.

A Vigorous Protest Against Certain Pro-
posed Legislation Regarding Them.
To The EDITOR-Sjr: The desire that all toll-roads
should be made free seems to be general throughout
the state and to accomplish that object several bills
have been introduced in each house of the present
general assembly. Two general methods pro-
posed. One is to authorize the board Of commits
sioners Of each county, whenever they deem it for
the public interest, purchase any eli tol-roads
within their county, and to pay for them what they
are fairly worth. The other is reduce the rates OF
toll that be charged low that the must
abandon them. No bill declares in terms such
purpose but such is the bic result should
such bin be passed and become law. One bill in
trod1ced in the house reduces the rates onehaf At
the present rates the capital invested does not yield
on IA average more than per cent, if that. II re-
quircs, average more than Onehalf OF the tolls
10 keep the roads in such repair 70 authorize the
collection OF tolls, and many roads require larger
proportion. ii the other half is taken away by the
reduction of rates. nothing would beleft paw divi
bends Three-fourths If not a larger proportion of
such roads would be rendered worthless and neces-
sarily abandoned. This would be conhscation in the
most undisguised form.
fScated rather than other species Of property? No
other investment Of like amount has ever been made
in the state that did more to improve the country
time when, during portions OF the year, il i'm
possible Tor the farmers TO get 70 market with their
produce, and it was done upon their urgent socita
It very evident that the capital of the of
these roads made whatever difference exists be-
tween them as they now are and what they were be-
put there and they would revert 10 their original
condition II takes no argument TO show that such
2 proposition would have no advocates. No; those
using these roads would rather pay toll than do
without them, and they would rather them with
out paying toll on them ii they could.
II cannot Justly be said that tolls are too high.
What, then, Is the excuse for reducing them? One
that used is, that the Will sell a fair
price, but facts do not sustain that charge. They
have not had an opportunity 10 sell. venture the
assumption that there is the that
not be bought to-day for less than it But it
will be said that tolls have been collected on them
for many years. and that they are badly worn aud
should not bring what they An answer to this
Is, that few, any, have paid interest the money
invested, 30 that no part OF the principal has been
received and all roads that have been kept ia cOndi
ton to authorize the collection Of tolls are better
ings OF metal have been put upon them every year
as they settle and become more compact and they
are better to-day than when made.
The only other argument in favor OF the reduction
Of tolls is that the value OF such property would
thereby be greatly decreased, SO that the public
would get il for nothing, price much less than
that those holding this view do comprehend the
principle involved The proposition is to take the
property Of the individual without just compensa-
ton, and il 10 the public Some OF this species
OF property perhaps belongs TO the milonaires and
some % wd and orphans; but IL Is no less yi0-
lation OF right, whether taken from the or the
other.
Another argument urged in favor of getting these
roads Tor less than they worth is that they
not in first hands Many of them have been bought
up ct less than cost and the holders should not be
permitted TO profit by their bargains. II Is true that
some roads have been sold. the stock bought up,
but very many have not But why should the pub
lie be entitled to have road Tor less than its value
any more from the man who buys it at a bargain
than from those who built il? II is the road they
get and is the road they should pay for, matter
from whom il is purchased. Is a farm worth any
less because il is purchased at one-ourth its value?
Why should . toll-rOa1 be?
There is a much stronger argument in favor of in
creasing than reducing tolls. They we're built 10
accommodate the public, and a large proportion of
them at the present rates pay dividends. Why
not increase the tolls until they do? TOll-TOads
have been singled out for eoniscation to-day, and
tomorrow il may be something else. Where will
this doctrine lead to? 1t is well to hesitate before
taking such step. The proposed reduction of tolls
would bankrupt some Of the owners. Should that he
done? What is the difference 20 him whether his
property is destroyed by legislation by of
the incendiary2 The result is the same, and IL is
hard 10 distinguish between the morality OF them on
principle JUSTICE.
IndianapoIis Feb. O..