The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-13

ASK ana neeO EcllCL Aloih SAN
 dens of unrestricted taxation. Re
 snectfully submitted to the Consti-
 tutional convention now in session.
 The above mentioned pamphlet pur- ports to relate to a matter or taxa lion. It in fact relates to an effort to have the Constitutional Convention make the Railroad Commission the traffic manager of every railroad in the State of Alabama. AS every rail- road company is naturally interested in tht selection of it's traffic manager deem 1t proper to ask some comments upon this pamphlet.
 The meaning and effect of this ef- fort must be kept steadily in view. II the Sentlemne making 1t were confront ed with a proposition to fix by puoIc off;ciels the terms upon which they con duct their business they would at once appreciate the radical character or such regulation. They would know IL to be inconsistent with their managing their own business or their own prop erty in any substantial degree.
 The persons who Invest their money in railroads have a natural desire 10 ry.a,age their property. They fully realize that it is affected with public use. and therefore subject to reason able governmental regulation; but they have a right to expect that their man agement of the property will not be i'm haired except so far as Is absolutely required by the public interest, and that certainly their right or man. asement will not be utterly destroyed fand that is what is here propose0 without the very strongest reasons. This desire ought to be respected as far as is consistent with the pubic in- ferest. They have a right to assume thas any proposition to destroy their voire in the management of the prop erty will be most carefully. weighed and will be rejected unless there is strong public necessity for adopting It. The reasons, therefore, urged In pe- half of this proposition should be most thoroughly considered.
 The reason most persistently urseu ss that the railroads exercise the tax ing power. and that therefore the power so exercised should be restrained III the same way that limitations are im- ,,osed ,1pon the taxing power of coun- Sies and municipalities. But the rall- roads do not exercise the taxing power and the proposition is not merely to mt a limitation upon their rates, but to take the fixing of their rates absolute- W out of their hands. Moreover these nrennises. even If correct. would not justify abolishing the right of railroad owners to manage their property un- less some strong practical necessity were shown for so radical a step.
 Railroad rates are not taxes. It Is un- wise and unjust to base any practlcai and radical regulation upon the ao- stract and fallacious theory that they are taxes. The elements in which rall- road rates differ from taxes are nu- Ynerous and obvious, and 1t IS unnec- essary to specify them. Tt will be sur ficient to notice the reasons generally suggested why they should De regard ed as taxes. road company is performing a purely governmental function, and as the gov ernment if it performed the function would defray the expenses by tax therefore the method in which the railroad company raises its revenue is a species of taxation. If this assump- lion were true the postal service ought to afford a complete analogy. The un- important fact may be mentioned in passing that postage stamps are not generally regarded as taxes. The two important facts should be constantly borne in mind. however. that all the property used in the postal service. in the way of postoffices, postal cars, etc, is paid for with public funds, and that ali deficiencies in the operation or the postal service are made good out Of the public treasury. Therefore. even if the tra importation of passengers and freight were a purely governmental function. the rates charged therefor ought not to be regarded as taxes un- iY1 aIYOh portation had been furnished by public funds, and unless deficiencies in op- eration were made goood out of the public treasury.
 But the transportation of freight and passengers is not a purely govern mental function. On the contrary neith CT in England nor in the United States has the government ever undertaken except possibly in rare instances and for short intervals, to perform the du- ties of a common carrier of freight and passengers. The government has ire 0uently furnished highways which might be used by common carriers. but 1t has not acted as a common car rier upon those highways. Probably not over 20 or 25 per cent. of the ex- penditures of a railway company are incurred in maintaining the high way which it uses. All the other expenditures are incurred in perform ing transportation services, which ser vices have always. both in EnglanC and Ameriea, been performed by indi' yiduals or private corporations and no Inv the Government. The railroads art not. therefore, performing government tal functions if we look to the history of England and America for a definition of that term.
 It is frequently assumed that rail road companies enjoy the benefit o some peculiar and exclusive franchisei from the State. This assumption prob abIv grows out of the incorrect ides 1usf noticed, that railroad transporta tIon ia A governmental function. IT fact. the railroads have no peculiar o exclusive franchises. Under the law' of Alabama, it is just as easy for an! number of individuals desiring to form a 'corporation to operate a railroad t' oet authority from the State for tha 1urnose. as it is for the same individ uals desiring to form corporation 10 the purpose of conducting wholesal grocery business to get authority there for from the State.
 It is frequently assumed that rail roads are monopolies. They are cer ta'nly not legal monopolies-that IS Tn stitutions having exclusive legal rlghtS To be sure. they have the exclusive le gal right to use their own propert just as a wholesale grocery corporation has the exclusive legal right to tn house which 1t acquires for buslnes nurposes, But the railroad compan has no exclusive legal right to carr, freight or passengers between any tw
 6eG1flnl