Putnam patriot., 1926-09-24

kEL. COMM I8SER 1T
 - - # Boston and SsE York. These are ths natural e4ar=e- taken by motor vehicles carrying freight and express. This is a baslre proposition. Non residents are passing through with merchandise. azlHE the roadways for their 5wn profit and they should con- tribute to their gpkeop. The state also attracts a large number of out of state ummer ItaFz to its shore and mountain resorts many 8f whom stay for longer period than appears fair unless they make payment for road us- age T. Is properly arguable that the summer visitor brings compensation by purchases af local merchandise. by payment of rent and by contribution t0 the bushes of the community where he soiolrHs This k not SO in eases where the vehicle k being used in connection with the business being conducted for profit.
 Although the law at present imposes q fifteen day limit for ali ears. | seems that so far this state is con ieerned there should be unlimited reel ! procity for so-eaIled pleasure cars and that some form of special road tax should be imposed upon ont of state users for commercial purposes, such as interstate motor busses and freight transportation vehicles on a pay basis. h short. if would seem that a regis trant who uses the Connecticut high ways for business purposes should pay Ia proper proportion of their upkeep. IL may be argued that this is already done by all such through imposition and collection of the gasoline tax. but careful investigation of this claim showed absolutely that the most that any interstate vehicle paid in any one year fo Connecticut through the gaso- line tax was approximately sixty dol lars. The fact that the state is SO small and that neither New York nor Massachusetts. adjoining it. have q gasoline tax, makes t possible for the driver af a vehicle to stock up and go through without buying gasoline. fl its owner decides that it Is an equitable thing to do.
 This is q matter which is still in the future l. ought to be possible. and perhaps sometime will he. for each state to recognize the operators h. cense of another s6 that any person residing n reciprocal group can le- gallE operate amy registration .a any state in the group Bat this happy condition has Ha gel HeTH arrived af although the sfH X steoTiHr thai Wa.- The reason is That the=4a 4aallfiaas 5suz at various states are -a different Some states require examination af person before grautir# operators H5ceHzes. bat many other ] Hat The exam nation af one s=ate He sHmH t#mes very different from that af another. as fIr example one commissioner and iazf-- iature may believe eve-#eHf ta be tHe crucial part af a test while another may stEess she heHHHE fHe obvious answer is fd bc sure af aif Che senses and especially of the general intelli- gence. but the administrator iH every state is, and probably always will he. handicapped and held down hy the size Of appropriations for >ach purposes. The Conference referred m lH fI- turc paragraph has been tending to- ward a uniform examination af aner- atar< Then -eems ta be haugs that 8 EHti fAAAfAHA HEEEiH Etf AAl HHHHtHH WHICH better y-tam can b. based
 in some states ne operator license is broad enough O cover such a eandi@ uen. reaaiHl as II does. that any per- is as yet required. hut it is fa= be e-- AHI Alt7e4a5azt a4l qua p33aH SHHiaad son legally gthor.zed n his home state is leev authorized te operate n Conu~rH. for the statutory r,r.- cd
 h Connecticut q visiting operator caHne eHste a Connecticut ear uI#s e#afef's Incense issued bV aHH This particular phase
 'se and the existing sltaa-
 state authorities lat t .Ha lr ad1alrHnE states the
 which one may 4u fs
 Is almost 4H.faeme
 iH Connecticut
 H- geHHae ea ha
 tza N
 operate bs
 HgzHs .1eratar
 
 ts tAs clause 4t ta aerau practice e have HeH
 Ea HN tatlsa#s .Ea aHHH Wpanled fh6 matter ef being lost t df Sh1ula aaeome necessary To in- tgrgflt tla5 law it appears reasgf5- able ta expect that high edart H say that .he term "under instruct anf ] means something definite Probably if the case in which the interpreta- uen Is asked has 8 time element. the court may set reasonable time limt during which instruction Wiil be more than name. The law and its adaptation as it now exists Is nof entirely practical until such an in- terpremtar Is had and should one be made iis exact enforcement would probably b, oppressive. and in many cases work hardship l, would be more far t6 adopt a straight sixteen year cid a0 and let the inspection and examination forces If the state see that ngi unfit or irrespons be applicants are qualified r has per hans not been quite clear that the