The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-10-31
Minort,v Ranort on the Levis Bin.

Minority Report on the Lewis Bill.
The minority report on the bill Of Repre-
sentative Lewis is hardly just to the legis-
lature. The purpose Of the bill is to pre-
vent thelessees of the Western and Atlantic
railroad from partly wrecking that road
should they attempt to do so. The minority
report takes the ground that the lessees
have not been fairly dealt with, because
the legislature has not agreed to "arbitrate"
their claims and has refused to consider"
them. The report also assumes that If the
lessees were to let the property run down,
and return it to the state in just as good
condition as it was when they received it,
they would comply with their contract.
As matter of fact. has the legislature
refused to consider the claim of the les'ees
for bettermentsl When the lease bill was
under consideration was not this claim con-
sidered fully and fairly! Those members
who favor paying the claim said all there
was to be said in its behalf, and those who
objected to paying it gave their reasons for
their position. The sentiment of the legis-
lature was against paying the claim, or any
part of it. What more was there to be
dones Although the claim had not been
presented at that time in a definite shape.
everybody understood the nature of it, and
it was virtually rejected.
Subsequently the legislature appointed
committee to receive the claim of the
lessees. The committee reported it to the
legislature, together with the arguments in
support of it. The legislature saw nothing
apparently in either the claim or the argu-
ments in its behalf to cause it to chsnge its
position, and, therefore. it has done nothing
with the report Of the committee. What
the lessees are clamoring for is not hear
ing, because that they have virtually had,
but the payment of their claim. OF course
they represent that they have been refused
a hearing, but is such the case? When the
House took up the lease bill it also took up
their claim, and the two matters were con-
sidered together. The decision was against
the claim, and what the lessees are now
trying to do is to reverse that decision.
When it is urged that the state "agreed
that the road should be returned in as good
condition as when it was received by the
lessees," the intention of the state is not in
terpreted correctly. What the state meant
by the provision in the lease contract-that
the road should be returned in as good con-
dition as it was when received by the lessees
was that it should be returned in at least
as good a condition. The understanding
that if it was in better condition at the
end of the lease it should not be partly
wrecked to bring it to the condition it was
when the lessees received it was implied.
There is no moro justice in the demand
for compensation for petterments on the
Western and Atlantic road, under the con-
tract between the state and the lessees than
there would be in the demand of a farmer
for compensation for increasing the
productiveness of land which he had rented
for period of years. The farmer is re-
paid for improving the land by the
increase in the value of the crops
produced, and he has no claim
on the owner of the land. The lessees
of the Western and Atlantic railroad agreed
to pay for the use of the road about what
it was worth when they received it. But it
was worth a great deal more when they
improved it. They paid no more, however,
and they got back what they spent in bet
terments in the increased income from the
They did not improve the prop
erty with the expectation that they would
get paid for the improvements. They i'm
proved it because it paid them to do SO.