The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1891-05-22
THE ROAD BILL VETOED.
GOVERNOR PATTIsoN SAYS THE Oh
JECrIoNS ARE MINIFoLD.

JECrIONS ARE MINIFOID.
Governor Pattison has sent 70 the
Senate his veto of what is commonIv
known as the Road Bill. He said
"The objections to this measure
seem to me to be manifold. Its pur.
poses are SO numerous and diverse as
to expose 1t to the Constitutional OBJ
lection OF containing more than one
subject. What ever popular demand
exists for the enactment of legislation
on the subject of roads and road max.
ing will certainly not be satisfied with
the provisions Of this bill. If they are
to become effective at all, they could
be made SO only by liberal appropria-
ton OF State moneys, for which neither
this bill nor any other legislation, as
yet enacted, has made provision. Even
If such grant were made it is very
doubtful whether the plan of distribu
ton proposed by this bill would be
equitable, satisfactory or Constitutional.
The basis of distribution which it pro.
poses is the amount Of road taxes col
leCted and expended by each township
for road purposes during the preced-
ing year. This would put it entirely
within the power of rich and populous
rural districts, such, for example, as
adjoin large cities and boroughs, to le-
ceive a large share of the States
bounty, which would be applied where,
perhaps, 1t was least needed for the
purposes of general road improvement,
while remote, sparsely settled and
comparatively poor districts, where
road improvements were most desired,
would receive little or comparatively
nothing . ......
Moreover, the policy and propriesy
of the grant of State moneys raised by
general taxation to particular districts
or communities are extremely doubt
full, if not absolutely forbidden by the
spirit of the constitutional provisions
declaring that there shall be no APP
preparation for benevolent purposes to
any community, and that the Com
monwealth shall not assume the debt
OF any city, county, borough, or town
sOip. The present enactment propos
es to distribute to some of the districts
of the State, for a purely local purpose
that of road making moneys which
have been raised by taxation upon all
the citizens of the State The roads
Of the townships only are to be con
structed and repaired by the aid of the
State moneys, while those of munich
palities are to be provided for by local
taxation. This is description wholly
unwaranted by the Constitution.
"Furthermore, cannot ignore the
fact that this bill passed the House of
Representatives by bare constitut-
ional majority. That majority, it is
notorious, was only secured with great
difficulty, and l violate no confidence
in saying that since its passage in the
one branch of the General Assembly
a number of members, whose votes
were required to make that majority,
have communicated to me Their OPP
position to and protest against the bill
in its present form. OF the 1903 mem
bers who comprised this majority,
barely one-ffth represent districts af-
fected by the bill. 1t was imposed
upon the communities affected by it
against the votes and protest of large
proportion of their representatives.
Finally, if there were no other OBJ
jections to this bill, sufficient one
would be afforded by the fact that
there are at present special and local
road laws to the number of 700, gov
erning as many townships of the State.
If the present bill is to have any eff
cheney it must result from its opera
ton as general road law, binding at
least on all the townships of the State.
The section which proposes to repeal
all special and local laws inconsistent
with it is not sufficient for that pur-
pose according to the decisions of our
Supreme Court If they remain, as
they certainly will under the bill in its
present form, it will uterlly fail as a
measure to secure uniformity of road
law. Other reasons fcrcibly suggest
themselves for disapproval of this
measure, but deem those which l
have set forth as ample to justify
veto of the bill" .-t.....
H..