The Use of Public Ways.

The Use of Public Ways.

Very few questions, says an exchange, have commanded thoughtful attention to a greater extent than that of the “Use of Public Ways by Private Corporations,” and The Arena, in its May number, publishes what it terms a discussion upon this important subject. Samuel L. Powers, a prominent and leading attorney of Boston, than whom we know of no one better qualified, owing to his careful and minute investigation of the subject, upholds and defends corporative franchises, rights, and privileges so ably, that the article is well worth reading. Mr. Schindler’s argument in reply to that of Mr. Powers contains about all that can be said upon his side of the question. lie discusses the question, however, from a nationalistic standpoint, claiming that municipalities should own and operate street car, electric light, telegraph, and telephone systems, and that private corporations should not be allowed to occupy the streets for the purpose of carrying on a business for private gain. This is not the question that is receiving public attention to-day. The real question is whether private corporations, while they continue to make use of public ways, ought to pay for that privilege. Mr. Schindler says that: if they are required to pay for the privilege it will have a tendency to lead to municipal control, and. therefore they ought to pay for it. In other words, whatever will help the nationalistic movement ought to be done. It would appear that the strongest possible argument against the taxation of private corporations using public ways is in fact that such use is either consistent with the purpose for which highways are laid out and being maintained, or inconsistent with such purpose. If consistent, then certainly tfie corporations ought not to pay any more than the ordinary traveler. If not consistent, then they ought not to be allowed to use the highways at all. In other words, towns and cities have no authority to make a lease of their interests in the streets and highways.

Very few questions, says an exchange, have commanded thoughtful attention to a greater extent than that of the “Use of Public Ways by Private Corporations,” and The Arena, in its May number, publishes what it terms a discussion upon this important subject. Samuel L. Powers, a prominent and leading attorney of Boston, than whom we know of no one better qualified, owing to his careful and minute investigation of the subject, upholds and defends corporative franchises, rights, and privileges so ably, that the article is well worth reading. Mr. Schindler’s argument in reply to that of Mr. Powers contains about all that can be said upon his side of the question. lie discusses the question, however, from a nationalistic standpoint, claiming that municipalities should own and operate street car, electric light, telegraph, and telephone systems, and that private corporations should not be allowed to occupy the streets for the purpose of carrying on a business for private gain. This is not the question that is receiving public attention to-day. The real question is whether private corporations, while they continue to make use of public ways, ought to pay for that privilege. Mr. Schindler says that: if they are required to pay for the privilege it will have a tendency to lead to municipal control, and. therefore they ought to pay for it. In other words, whatever will help the nationalistic movement ought to be done. It would appear that the strongest possible argument against the taxation of private corporations using public ways is in fact that such use is either consistent with the purpose for which highways are laid out and being maintained, or inconsistent with such purpose. If consistent, then certainly tfie corporations ought not to pay any more than the ordinary traveler. If not consistent, then they ought not to be allowed to use the highways at all. In other words, towns and cities have no authority to make a lease of their interests in the streets and highways.