The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1905-11-23
Railroad Passes.
From Nashville American.

At the last legislative session / in
troduced a fellow-servant' bill. 1t
was the mildest, most conservative bill
which had been introduced in any state
of the Union SO far as l could ascer-
tain. But it gave offense to non-resi-
dent railroad companies whose lines
extended into this state, and certain OF
their representatives called on me at
the Maxwell House to protest. Failing
to obtain from me a promise to with
draw the bill, one of those representa-
tives said the bill would be defeated no
matter how much it cost. replied
that the senate had thirty-three mem
bers and my judgment was it would
take thirty-three million dollars to buy
them. After the bill was defeated the
same representative said to me joking
y that it didn't cost anything like
what said it would. l do not believe
for one moment that any money was
used at all. Nor am / willing to i'm
ply that any senator or representative
was conspicuously Influenced by inn
proper means or motives. All the same,
railroad passes were very extensively
issued to aud used by members of the
Legislature, not especially, of course,
in connection with any particular
measure. Were these passes issued by
the railroad companies to members Of
the legislature simply as compliment
ary and voluntary contributions to
public service, without expecting any
thing in return? let us hope 80.
Very soon after | introduced that fell
low servants bill and after | declined
on request to withdraw it, represen-
tative of nonresident railroad com.
pany politely reminded me that / had
accepted his company's pass. Fortu-
pately had not ridden single mile
on the pass and promptly returned it.
Within the last ten years one of the
Judges Of this state told me that after
he had decided an important law suit
against certain railroad company he
had been requested bp it to return the
annual pass which had been issued to
him and had done 80. At the close OF
the year he was the only Judge IN that
section of the state to whom an annual
pass was not issued. He complained
to the attorney of the railroad company
and ultimately an annual pass was is
sued to him again.
A Juror once told me that railroad
company had issued him pass and he
accepted it just before the convening
of the term of court for which he was
appointed. During that term he as
juror aSreed to large verdict against
the railroad company. After his dis
charge the return of his pass was de-
msnded and he was threatened with
prosecution.
These instances are sufficient for the
point I want to make. 1t is almost
against human nature for q public
official to occept personal favor and
not have a kindly feeling toward the
donor. There may be no difficulty in
an honest Judge reaching an unbiased
conclusion on plain case. But most
law suits have doubtful questions. II
the Judge has accepted personal favort
from one side and is stranger to the
other, will bis mind be absolutely i'm
partial as it should beV
The same question may be asked il
reference to members of Legislative
bodies and in reference to other public
Officials and in reference to delegates
to public conventions. Is it not almos
farce for q convention to meet II
nominate the Railroad Commissioner
for the state when the members of thai
convention are transported from anC
back to their homes free by the rail
road companies?
| do not wish to be understood o.
criticising the public officials, espe
cially the Judges of the state. The.
Eall draw small salaries. Public dutie
require most of them to do much trav
cling. No expense fund is provided b,
b Il state, Our legislatures are penn,
wise and pound foolish. A few dollar
, are saved by narrow policy and tn
independence of the public service
sacrifice. Most Judges and member
OF legiI lative bodies simply can not al
ford to reJuse railroad passes.
North Carolina, by statute, allows a
unconditional expense fund of $500 t
each Judge, in addition to salary.
New Jersey by statute gives right {
- free transportation over lines of CON
mon carriers to all Judges and men
bers of the state government. This
no additional burden on the railroa
, companies; most, if not all, of them ii
!, sue these passes anyhow. There al
pears to be no constitutional ohjectio
l ia the way. It is no more taking I
1 private property for public use, whiC
under the constitution must be pal
for, than the requirements of lawyer
when their services are called for b
the representatives OF the law. !
Railroad companies ought not to ol
ject. A statute would define and lin
their obligations and reheve them fro
other responsibility and annoyance an
from sli suspicion. Public sefvsn
\ ] = l. 4