The Portland daily press., 1899-05-18
CURRENT COMMENT
HALIFAX'S RIVALRY WITH PORT
LAND.
(Halifax Herald. }

Regarding the allegation that Sir
Charles Upper said the other day that 1t
was "monstrous" to try to compete at
Halifax against Portland, Maine, the
reply again is that Sir Charles said no
such thing. What Sir Charles said the
had said years ago, in this city and In
parliamen that experience had shown
that the lntercolonial was too long to
compete successfully against the shorter
line from Montreal to Portland, Maine
The Chronicles pretence that this is
something new from Sir Charles Topper
which he would be ashamed to repeat In
Halifax, is mere pretencs. People In
Halifax, heard the same years ago from
Sir Charles Tuppsrs own lips. and they
not only heard Ii, but approved of 1T. To
overcome the difficulty of this long
route, Sir Charles favored the Q. p. X.
Short Line, which would not only make
the Dominion of Canada independents OF
Portland, Maine, but which by an i'm
proved connection from Harvey to Sails
bury, should afford Halifax it's proper
benefit from the great trans-continental
ROAD. The Chronicle appears to be
angry at..Sir Charles for allowing Canada
to have any railway shorter than the
Intercolonial; and the Grit spleen from
the first was SO great as to prevent, BY its
defeat of the Harvey salisbury bill, the
full and just measure of benefit coming
to Halifax; and Blair now seems deter
mined to carry out the same policy OF en-
nifty to this port, by cutting Halifax OH
entirely from any connection with the u.
PR. The c. P. r. with It's Short Line
and connections, was designed to enable
the Dominion to be Independent of Port
land. Maine; and 1t Is to be noted that
there was nothing in Sir Charles Iupper' 8
remarks against the capahility of the G..
p. II. at Dominion ports competing suo-
cessfully against the roads 10 Portland,
Maine. But the very road built to give
Halifax its true position in Canadian
transportation, is to be denied entrance
icle applauds!
THE TAXATION OF FRANCHISES.
New York Tribune.)
While bowling to the Court Of Appeals
and administering the law as he found
it, Judge Cullen of New York has point
ed out with convincing force the justice
of such taxation. He has shown the neoes-
sity and the propriety of just such a
measure as the Ford bill, and told how
for forty years the corporations bore
such a tax without oavii OF complaint.
and without suggesting that 1t was not
imposed upon them by law" Justice
Cullen's legal opinions are not common
ly reproached as Populistic. Roswell z.
Flower is not given to leading attacks on
capital or showing that prosperity is a
crime. Yet MIR. Flower with oil his great
rapid-trapsit interests, acknowledged the
justice of the tax.
The taxation of public franchises is no
new thing in this or other countries. In
many cities of Europe corporations are
subject to exaotiOns unheard Of here,
but enterprise is not discouraged. In
some states OF the Union franchises are
taxed in substantially the same manner
in which New York franchises will be
taxed under the Ford bill. There is moth
ing revolutionary about it. There is no
oonfiscation In 1t. II these street fran
chises are valuable and command high
price. when bought and sold, as many
of them do, the fact should be- ascertained
the public burden. II they are not val
liable that fact will appear, and there
will be no assessment. The fact that for
few years thoselwho did business in the