The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1906-02-08
BAL !M!!|ORE & OHIO
SHOWN IN BAD LIGHT
Relation With Washington Branch Set
Forth in Document Sent to Annapolis
RESULr0F RHODESlNvEsTIGATIoN
Railway May be Compelled to Pay
20 Per Cent of Earnings.


The report of Mr.. Frank V.
Rhodes on the Washington branch,
B. & o. r. R, was made to Mr..
William Shepard Bryan, jr., attor-
ney general. Mr.. Bryan determin-
ed to use this statement as his own
report to the Legislature upon the
affairs of the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad Company and the state of
Maryland He therefore request
ed Mr.. Rhodes to forward copy
to the president of the Senate, and
this copy was Immediately sent to
Annapolis. Another copy was
placed in the hands of Governor
Warfeld.
The first part of the report re
lates the history of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company and
enumerates the several acts OF the
Legislature under which it was
privileged to pursue the course
which it followed. Mr.. Rhodes
says.
81 wish to state that 1 have ex-
amined carefully all the acts of
the Assembly of the state of Mary
land, all the acts of Congress, all
the ordinances of the mayor and
city council of Washington as it
formerly existed, as we'll as the
acts OF the Legislature or the Dis
triCt of Columbia for the years 1871
and 1873"
In the history Of the Baltimore
and Ohio there appeared repeated
evidences Of an effort to evade the
railroads obligations to the state.
The original agreements was that
the state was to receive one-ffth
or 20 per cent. of the receipt from
traffic between Baltimore and
Washington, and this proportion
was paid regularly from 1855 to
1868.
Then, however, the railroad
company began action, claiming
that the law whereby the tax was
imposed was unconstitutional, and
that the state could not charge it
with one-ffth. The railway com
pany lost this suit.
Subsequently it began suit Oh
the grounds that it should be re-
quired to pay only one-hfth upon
the traffic between Relay and the
District line, as this was the origi-
nal confines Of the Washington
Branch. Its efforts, however again
met with defeat.
Then came the master stroke Of
the railroad company. 1t was
paying one-6fth oft receipts to the
state. 1t made proposition that
instead Of this amount it pay y of
I per cent. upon its earnings.
This proposition, strange to say,
was favorably acted upon by the
Legislature
Just what this means to the rail
road company is shown by the fact
that today it pays the state of
Maryland about So, 900 annually,
while under the original arrange
ment it would be required to pay
over $50, 1000 year. The State
Legislature, Mr.. Rhodes claims,
has authority to repeal this con-
tract. which changed the tax from
Is basis to the 10 per cent, as
the agreement was made subse-
quent to 1851.
Dwelling upon this phase of the
question, Mr.. Rhodes report says:
"On the other hand, it is suggest
ed that possibly there can be no
act OF the Legislature making any
contract or agreement with said
company at this time nor since
1851, which may not be repealed
at the will Of any subsequent Leg
islature.
The question was considered
very recently in the case of the
State of Maryland VS.. the Northern
Central Railway Company, which
decisions was handed down Febru-
airy 10, 1900, and reported in 90
Maryland at page AT. The court
was very explicit in stating that
any charter granted subsequently