Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1924-02-23

of protection to the steam and electric
railways, which furnish their own
track.
The argument is unsouEd: We are
not unmndful of the cost to the rail-
ways of building and maintaining their
own track, nor of the advantage to the
motor vehicle of having its track fur
nished by the public. But We recall,
also. that everyone has free use Of the
highway. A commemorative motor
truck transporting my goods for pay
does nothing, ia essence. but what |
as an individual have a free right to
do. l choose merely to employ an
agent. To penalize him is to penalize
me over and above fair cost for ser
vice because / choose to take advan-
tage of the economies or conveniencGs
of an alternative type of transporta-
ton.
If we consider transport on inland
waterways we find an analogous case.
River and canal navigation require
the dredging and maintenance OF
channels, which are done at govern
ment expense. We have at times
charged a toll to help pay for the
improvement but we have not assessed
a penalty to bring the rates on water
borne carriage up to those of the rail-
ways. on the contrary, We have
Gloricd in the fact that water rates
were lower than rail rates; in fact we
have actually used water rates as
club to secure lower railway rates, and
we urge that each type of transporta-
tion-rail and water-tind the commo-
ditics it is best suited to transport.
believing that thereby the nation will
be most economically served.
Indeed. if the penalty theory is to be
adopted what shall we do in the day
when air transport becomes formid-
able rival of land and water carriage.
Shall we hobble it by penalty rates in
the interest of the earlier forms of
transportation"
Obviously. sound economics demands
that we allow each type of transport
to develop it's utmost economies and to
find its place in the transport system
in accordance with the advantages it
offers the public. If an earlier form
suffers thereby, that cannot be helped
Naturally, the motor vehicle engaged
in common carrier service must pay
for the use of the road just as a pri-
Nately owned and operated vehicle
does. a tax graded by extent of use
of the road is the preferable one. and
where that does not exist n somewhat
higher tax on the common carrier is
warranted because of the certainty of
greater use of the road. Furthermore.
since it has become fixed principle
of cur system of taxation that indi-
viduals and corporations shall pay for
the privilege of doing business on
public streets the commoh-carricr
operator must expect to pay fran
Chise tax. AT present this tax is in
most states assessed i'll the form of a
fixed fee. which is generally deter
mined. for passenger vehicles by the
seating capacity. In lcVyinG these add
ditional taxes the principle already
laid down of not being punitive should
apply. The benefits of motor trans.
port should be returned to the public
directly in the rates rather thar
through taxes.
Conclusion
1t is apparent then that the field of
motor-a transport regulation, whether
of private or common carrier vehicles,
las many problems TO which the minds
of American business men need To- ho
addressed. 1t is not enough that those ,