The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-19

the reader can judge The only in- ternal Improvements. under our form of government by the State, which all the people of the State have right and ownership: a rule which cannot be applied to such improve ments as benefit those within q ra- dius of three or four miles" as is admitted by Mir. Craft. There Is more justice and reason in the high tariff to protect manufacturers (so unjust and obnoxious to an agricui- tural people) than can be adduced to the proposition that the Legislature should be unqualifedly authorized to embark upon the system proposed
 If there should ever come time when there is a superabundance of money in the county treasury, the condition should call for further edu- cational benefits or reduction of taxes and Tightening of burdens upon property. and not to stimulate the in- vention of new "fads" for it's con sumption by the politician or non-tax payer, whose stock in trade" is his great love for the dear people,
 Our people are just getting back to the wealth per capita we had before the Civil War. We are prospering. not rapidly. but surely, and each
  ample power under the constitution as 1t is, to put out all the money the county can afford upon public roads. and we need no supervision in this matter. The provisions of the pres ent Constitution are an exact copy of the Constitution framed in 1s76--the first after the days of Reconstruction. Able men were members of both con ventions and they were patriotic. and had only the good of their country at heart. We should be careful not to tear down the work of those conven- tions.
 If my memory serves me correct the provision was inserted in the Constitution of 1875 as a rebuke to Legislative action by the Republican Reconstruction party, which gave the State credit to aid in building rail- roads. and which involved the State so deeply in debt. and to provide against the possible recurrence of such action.
 The following words in the proposed amendment, viz, .and the Legislature may also make additional appropria- tions to such puFposes.' removes all restriction. and the Legislature is as omnipotent as the English Parliament. so far as the matter of appropriating State funds to road purposes It could involve the State in millions and mil- lions of dollars of indebtedness for such purposes.
 It is no argument to say the Legis- Iature win not do 1t. We know it has never failed to expend all in the Treasury, and more than anticipated from future collections. and expsri- ence has taught us that our only safety la to keep limitation upon its power. I am sure the people have not been informed as to the full meaning and danger of ths proposed amendment. We are not ready to em- bark upon the experiment of building Appian highways Of ancient Rome. or to make voluntary donations for the pleasure of the exeursionist. or the giving of great conveniences to favor ed sections of the State at the expense of the less favored.
 The Supreme Court of the State has often declared that cities and towns were authorized to assess adjacent property owners for improving streets such Improvements enhanced the value of the adjacent property, and charges could not be imposed beyond the increased value, otherwise iL would be depriving one of his prop erty, without due process of law.
 Can any one draw a distinction in principle between the rule applicable to cities and towns. and that should prevail as to citizens living at dis tance from the Improvements contem- plated by a change of the Constitu- ton? I say let the Constitution alone.
 Discussion of the foregoing propo- sition is invited. If not tenable or are inapplicable. let the defects be pointed out. If either ground is sound upon which the objections are rested then the amendment should be re- jected. Thos. W. Coleman
 Eutaw. Ala. July r. 1908.