The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1892-06-03
The Turnpike Question.


County taking charge of the Columbia
and Mt. Pleasant Turnpike, and running
it as toll road. The more / think about
it the better satisfied l become that the
Court ought to allow the late owners of
this road to repair it and run 1t under
their new charter, and thus regain their
property. These parties paid their
money for this road, and have lost 1t
without any fault on their part. The
County Court has taken possession and
is taking toll at the gates, The same toll
the old company took, without paying
the owners, or anybody else, one GEN.
for it.
| am informed that when the Supreme
Cour5 forfeited the charter they were
asked to decree that the road-bed, toll
houses and lots and other property
should go to the County and be under
it's control, and that the Court refused
to make such decree, and simply decreed
that the right to take toll was forfeited;
Lhus leaving in the company untouched
their right 20 the I'oad-Ded, toll houses
and lots, and other property.
Then if the company still owns the
road-bed, toll houses and lOts,what right
has the County, or anybody else, TO use
them tor profit without paying the profit
to the company? In other words, is not
the County bound, morally, If not
legally, to pay the company for the use
of their property. The Court refused
to let the company have their own prop
city, and has Itse-f taken possession of
eight thou and dollars ($S,0G0 or 100000
worth of property belonging to others,
and without paying them one cent for
it, and is using it as is supposed for the
public benefit. Is this right? If might
give right, then this is light. If justice
is right, then this is wrong.
Cen the great County of Mausy afford
10 do so great wronJ, without III some
way riShtlnS II!
Tunders.and the law 10 be, that under
certain circumstances a county court
may .un a pay turnpike. And in such
case she cannot put one dollar OF the
income into her treasury. 1t must all
De spent in Keeping up the road. The
pre- EN- managers are charging the same
TOLL the old company charged, except
they are giving low rates to the rich
land holders along ,he road. The pooi
What odds, then, does it make, either 70
the County Court or 90 the great body
of the people, to whom hey pay their
money? 1ley have to pay to the pres
ent manage: > the same they PAID TO the
old company, except the favored few to
whom low rates are now given. Inc
poor and outsiders, persons living oil
| the road, pay full uOil, and with their
money the road mus be kept up, while
the .'fch land owners along the road get
| their pilSeage for mere song.
All should be charged alike, the rich
and'thc poor. The ricn travel most and
should pay for each trip IKE me poor;
| If their income should be more than will
keep the road up, reduce tie price both
| to the rich and the poor.
! The ONLY parties, so far as | can see,
| to be benefited by the present arrange
ment, are the officers selected 10y the
| Court, with good salaries, TO run the
road and the rich land owners to whom
they have given low rates. The general
public get no advantage, neither doe
| the County. Then why not allow the
| owners of the property to run it them
selves and thus gel back the property
they have lost?
! understand the reason the Supreme
Court forfeited the charter, was that
\ the bridges across Blgby Creek were
washed away and not rebuilt; that the
! road bed was supposed to contract mar
rover than 80 feet; that the toli-gates
was put in the wrong places, ana that
! all this happened while the State owned
half the road and before the Rainy Co.
| bought it, and that the State sold 1T i'll
this condition, received $1,000 for it and
made a warranted deed tor 1T.
All this being so, it does not seem
that the court ought to have allowed
the company to get their property I'M
der their new charter. Especially
since taking it from them has benehted
nobody except the officers running the
road and the favored few TO whom they
have granted fates,
| Again, if the owners could not collect
toll with the bridges down, the road-bed
too narrow and the toll gates IN the
wrong places, how can the, County
Court? The bridges have not been re-
built. the road-bed has not been
! widened, nor the toll gates moved; yet
| toll is now being taken.
| A gain, it is said no law can be found
authorizing a County Court to run as
nav road, a turnpike whose charter has
beon forfeited, If this is so, the ac-
ton of the court is illegal, and people
can not be forced to pay toll They will
not pay unless they be forced. AND
here are grounds for lawsuits and
trouble.
l wish to state that 1 was turnpike
road Commissioner for two years, while
the Rainy Co. operated this road. Dur
ing this time officially examined this
| pike several times, and always found 1t
in good fix; comfortable and safe to
travel. L also ascertained that fight
| against the company, was not on &C
count of bad road, but because the
company would not give reduced rates
to certain persons living along the road.
| The road was then in much better fix
than now. There is no complaint now,
because they have procured low rates.
! Everything is now lovely. "Circum-
stances alter cases."
| Now it seems TO me that the fair thing
for the County Court to do, under ali
circumstances, is to allow the Rainy
Company this turnpike, under their
new charter,
1 have talked to many people of this
County about this matter, and L am
satisfied that at least nine-tenths OF
them who live off this pike are in favor
of the County giving it back to the old
company, by paying them for it, or sell
the privilege TO run it to the highest
bidder, and give the proceeds to the
Rainy Company. }. Nj. NICHOLSON