The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-09-01
The Retterment c!e!mants.


The claimants for compensation for bet
terments on the Yves ern and Atlantic rail-
road, notWithstandi their defeat in the
House, do not seem disposed vt TO abandon
their claim. l deed there are indications
that they purpose 10 press their claim as
vigorou ly in the Senate, when tie lease
bill is under consideration in that body, as
they did in the House.
Thew are beg inning to change their tao
tics somewhat, however, aud in receLt
newspaper articles, friendly to their claim,
there is a mild attempt to frighteh the leg
stature into sitting the letterment ques-
ton before the lease bill is finally dispJ
OF. For instance it is pointed out that the
state road may become involved in pro
tractei and injurious litigation in the Ten
nessee cout is if no provision is made for
paying for betterments, and 1t Is even sug-
gested that just before the expiration of the
lease tae steel rails may be eplaced by old
iron one.
1t is somewhat remarkable that prefer
ence is ex ressed for tho Tennessee courts.
Cannot the Georgia courts be trusted! Is
there better chance for getting justice in
Tennessee than in Georgia.! The fact that
the Western and Atlantic is owned by
Georgia ought not to influence the states
courts against litigants who have good
couse Of action, aud there is no reason for
thinking that it would.
The suggestion that the road may be
partially wrecked before being turned over
to the state is not worth serious thought.
The state authorities would not permit the
road to be damaged in any way. They viii
take care that 1t Is kept up to the preseat
standard Of excellence. Ia fact, there is no
danger that an attempt viii be made to
damage the road by letting it run down.
An attempt of that kind would be rather
costly and would be If little or no benefit to
those concerned in it.
The legislature has been solemnly warned
a number Of times that it had better settle
with the betterment clai nanus before com
pleting the lease bill. So nenow or other 1T
doesn't heed the warning. 1t is ve.y we'll
satisfied, doubtless, that there is no good
reason why it should heed it, The House
discussed the betterment claim pretty tuor-
oughly, and reached the conclusion that 0he
state owed the claimants nothi &. 1t did
not, therefore, see the wisdom of providing
for arbitrating the claim.
There is nothing in the lease which justi-
ties claim for betterments. 1t is true that
the lease declares that the road shall be re-
turoed to the state in as good condition as
when received from the state but that does
not mean that the state shall pay for i'm
provements, however great those improve
ments may be. The fact that nothing is
said in the lease about compensation for
improvements is about conclusive that the
st,te did not intend to pay for
improvements, and That the lie sees did not
expect pay for them. The plain inference,
however, to be drawn from the provision
requiring the road TO be returned in as good
condition as when received, is that the road
was to be kept in a condition that would
meet the demands upon it. The road has
been kept in that condition. Those who
operate it could not afford to have it in any
other. Why then should the state pay for
improvements which we're necessary for
the successful operation of the road, ana
without which its earning power would be
considerably below wnat it is' The i'm
prOvements nave paid for the nSelves Is
there, therefore, either justice or equity
in asking the state to pay for them?
The cl INFANTS. 1t seems, want to be paid
for them twice.
The Senate will hardly differ with the
House on the betterment question. There
will be difference Of opinion there, of
course, as there was in the House, but it is
pretty safe to say that the majority viii be
in harmony with public sentiment through
out the state.