DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO WOOD PAVEMENT.

The Secretary: It seems to me that as a sister Company, a member of this Association, is in distress at this time, if gentlemen having heard this letter read, will present their views as to the durability or lack of durability of wooden pavements; or if such gentlemen will give me their names, I will put the Company that asks for the information in communication with them.

Mr. Lawless, of Kansas City: We use considerable block pavement on our lines, unfortunately; and I would be glad to give the gentleman any information I possibly can.

Mr. Bailey, of Toledo: Mr. Secretary, you might put him in communication with the Toledo Consolidated Street Railroad Company.

Mr. Frayser, of Memphis: I have used a good deal of that pavement; and if the Secretary will furnish me the name and address of the gentleman who asks for the information, I shall be glad to communicate with him.

Mr. Bull, of Quincy: I would say that in some Western cities where wooden blocks have been used upon streets and streetrailways, brick is now being used, and so far very successfully.

Mr. Hasbrouck, of New York: Mr. President, may I request through you whether Mr. George Truesdell is in the room. I am pleased to know that his Company is a member of this Association; and if he is in the room, I should be very glad if he will come forward; I want to embrace him as an old friend.

The President: If Mr. George Truesdell is in the room, will he please come forward. Mr. Truesdell was not present.

Mr. Littell, of Louisville: Mr. President, I came in very late, just as Mr. Wyman finished the reading of his paper; I would like to ask if that was the report of the Committee.

The President: It was.

Mr. Littell I make a motion that the paper be received, and a vote of thanks tendered to Mr. Wyman for his excellent paper. The motion was carried.

The President: The Association has heard the letter read, inviting us to inspect the operation of the newly-equipped electric road here in the city of Washington. What is your pleasure regarding that invitation?

Mr. Woodworth, of Rochester: I move that the invitation be accepted, and a convenient hour appointed when we can go, if

the gentlemen wish. I would suggest that we do so after the adjournment to-morrow afternoon.

The motion was carried.

The President: If no one has anything further to offer at this stage of the meeting, we will consider the question of street-railway taxation.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STREET-RAILWAY

TAXATION.

Mr. Winfield Smith, of Milwaukee: Mr. President and gentlemen-There are some of us who find it a very formidable thing to read a paper, especially in the evening. Our younger brethren do not understand that; but there are a good many of us whose gray hairs indicate that they are keeping me in countenance in this thing. [Laughter.]

Mr. Smith read the report, as follows:

THE AMERICAN STREET-RALWAY ASSOCIATION:

Gentlemen :—I do not claim there is any justification for the course of one of your members, who, having agreed in the winter to read to you at this meeting a paper on the subject of street-railway taxation, before thinking any further on the matter, goes to Europe, and returns barely in time to appear at this Convention. Nor can I claim that while in Europe I have been considering the subject on which I have promised to address you. It is only in the intervals between pressing matters, since my return, that I have been able to see how little I might hope to instruct you upon this subject.

Railway taxation is a fact, and not a principle; a very complicated fact, insomuch that the laws of every State, and the laws of almost every city on this subject, differ from all others. I have been scrutinizing the statistics which have been in time past collected by this Association, and will give you the benefit of such information as is to be gleaned from them; from which you will probably conclude that, notwithstanding the lack of uniformity in taxing street-railroad companies, there is not, in most cases, a disposition to be unfair or unjust. We railroad men always expect to pay our full share of taxes; to bear our full share of every burden that comes upon others, and we are only too thankful if we do not pay more than our full share. It is for the most part a continual struggle on the part of street-railroad companies to simply secure even-handed justice, from those whose pleasure it seems to be, and constant desire, to devise new methods for sticking sharp pins into unhappy railroad companies.

In Wisconsin the constitution of the State requires that the rate of taxation shall be uniform, and consequently most of the taxes on street-railway property are assessed and collected as those on other property.

LICENSE ON CARS.

The exceptions are that there is added under the name of a license, an annual charge of $15 on each car run at any time by the Company, and there is also added the burden of requiring the street to be kept in repair for the central space of about fourteen feet and a half. I cannot help but think that the taxation of street-railroad property ought to be like that of all other property; that the real estate should be taxed as the real estate of individuals, and the personal property as the personal property of individuals. I do not know any reason why street railroads should be compelled to bear any burden beyond that which would be imposed upon other property. The vehicles run by street-railroad companies should not be taxed any more than the vehicles run by individuals. They are for the accommodation of people as are hacks and omnibuses, and if hacks and omnibuses ought for any sound reason to pay a license, it is quite possible that street-railroad companies should pay a license on cars, provided the same sound reason exists. It is supposed ordinarily that a license fee is charged against hacks and omnibuses, not as a matter of taxation, but for the sake of preserving a certain control over the owners of that class of property, for the purpose of better holding hack drivers and other drivers amenable to municipal regulations. This reason does not ordinarily exist in the case of street-railroad companies, for they are not usually irresponsible persons, but are easily subjected to any city or State legislation. Sometimes it may be truly said they are the victims of it. The drivers of a railroad car are in the employ of those whose capital invested is so great that they cannot hope to escape the commands of the law; whose vehicles are by their own nature so fastened to the tracks that they never can be removed from the jurisdiction of the Courts. They can hardly be sold out or in any way placed beyond the control of the authorities, and there occurs to me no just reason for placing upon them an annual license. Probably it is really a tax, and ought to be so considered by the companies and by the courts. In some States corporations are organized under special acts of the Legislature, and have peculiar privileges, and perhaps should, therefore, bear peculiar burdens. In Wisconsin and in other States the formation of corporations is free to all, and there seems to be, therefore, in the nature of a corporation, no reason for the imposition of burdens that are not common to unincorporated individuals or to other industries. In Wisconsin, for instance, there is no exemption of street-railroad property from taxation, and as it pays all, and in some respects more than, its proportion of taxes, it is not easy to see on what ground special burdens should be placed upon it.

STREET REPAIRS.

The chief burden which is imposed on that property in Wisconsin, and also in many other parts of the United States, is the duty of keeping in repair the street for a greater or less width. In Pittsburgh, I understand that some companies are forced to keep the entire street in repair. Perhaps they have corresponding advantages in relief from other taxation. This particular charge is extremely burdensome, and I believe is not uncommon, and amounts not infrequently to far more than the sums exacted in ordinary taxation.

I know that the Company which I represent pays for this particular species

of taxation twice as much as for all others combined, and in consequence it may be fairly said that our rate of taxation is three to four times the rate which is imposed on individuals carrying on other pursuits, or dealing in other property. The only claim I have ever heard made in support of the requirement is that cars use a large portion of the street, almost to the exclusion of other vehicles, and that in order to run them, rails are laid upon the street, which are an inconvenience and injury to other vehicles, and interfere with them; that in effect a certain part of the street is set apart to the use of street-railroad cars, and it is therefore reasonable that their owners should keep such parts of the street in repair. It is proper to consider whether as a matter of principle these reasons justify the requirement of the street railroad companies to repair the streets. I assume that ordinarily streets are kept in repair by the municipal authorities through taxes imposed, sometimes upon the real estate along the streets, but usually upon general property. These streets are built and maintained for the express purpose of being run over and used by all sorts of vehicles. It is expected and desired that passengers shall pass over them, and that loads of all sorts shall be carried upon them. The pavements are made for that object, and it is deemed just, in respect to all other than street-railroads, that the burdens of such pavement, and such maintenance, should be borne by the public at large. Hack drivers and omnibuses carry passengers over the streets for purely private gain; other vehicles carry passengers for private gain or pleasure. The public reaps the advantage, and the public pays the expense. The public ride, and individuals pay. There is no difference in principle in this respect between the street car and the omnibus, hack or carriage. The car is run for the gain of the owners, and for the convenience of the public. The public enjoy the advantages, including that of an extremely cheap rate. There is nothing in the mode of use, there is nothing in the nature of the benefit to the owner or to the public at large, which distinguishes the street car from the hack, or which justifies the imposition of a tax on the former that is not placed upon the latter.

If we consider the amount of wear and tear, the advantage is decidedly with the street car company. The company furnishes its rails, and only its animals wear the road. Other vehicles wear with their wheels, often excessively. The street car often carries on any one street more passengers than all other vehicles together. This means then that the public derive more benefit from the street cars than from all other vehicles together. But that is not a reason for a special tax on street cars. Rather the contrary. The streets are built and repaired for the very purpose of carrying passengers, an object recognized as a public object. Street cars are simply carrying out that object when they furnish facilities so cheap and convenient that they are more prized and more used than other vehicles. If paving and repairing streets constituted a work proper to be done because of necessity of accommodating the people that ride, then it should be particularly done for those vehicles in which the majority of the people do ride.

Another reason sometimes is assigned that the street-railroad companies place rails in the street which are in a degree inconvenient to other vehicles. That is true. It will be seen, and is probably a fact within the experience of you all,

that, unless the cars are so frequent as to prevent it, the rails are also an actual convenience and of great utility to ordinary vehicles, excepting the light, fast running carriages. The heavy loads seek the railroad tracks and occupy them, often hindering the cars. The street rails are the smoothest part of the ordinary road, and are consequently chosen by the drivers who wish thus to relieve their horses. I think it is not incorrect to say that the street rails on the whole are of more advantage than impediment to other vehicles. And it is also to be noticed that while other vehicles impede travel in exercising their unrestricted right to cross from one side to the other of the street and to occupy any portion of it, the cars are confined to a narrow space in the street, leaving the wider space to the vehicles, which carry the fewer passengers. If the street cars are so frequent that other vehicles are prevented from running on the railroad tracks, it proves that the passengers in them are numerous, and consequently that the majority of the public is served by them; the legitimate inference from which is that the street cars should be favored, and not oppressed.

It is said, also, that the street cars are protected by ordinances and laws; that they are authorized to collect fares, to receive moneys from passengers for riding. So are all other vehicles. There is really nothing worthy of consideration in an argument so trivial.

The last argument used, but perhaps the first one thought of by the defender of this peculiar charge, is that the street car companies, by virtue of the rights given them, are profitable and, therefore, can afford to pay. I say this is the argument least used, because upon the face of it it is unsound. Men are ashamed to utter it. If the company is profitable, and its property therefore increases in value, as it must in order to be profitable, it is taxable, and usually it is taxed very freely in proportion. There is no more propriety in a double tax on a street railroad because it is prosperous, than on any other business. It should be justly taxed in proportion to its property, and not beyond. It is quite well known to you all that the pitch of prosperity to which some of our street-railroad companies have reached, is by no means attained by all, and that many of the street-railroad companies of the United States have had from the beginning a hard struggle to maintain themselves, and now have; while those which have now an established and handsome income, have usually succeeded to that result after long and painful struggles, during which the owners have been forced to advance large sums of money upon the uncertain hope of ultimate return. It is rare, indeed, according to my observation, that the money invested in street railroads would not have proved equally remunerative if invested at the same time in real estate upon the same streets. The increased prosperity of the transit company results from the growing wealth of the city, or of that part of the city where the company's tracks are laid. Even in our largest cities where the street-railroad companies have seemed to enjoy a phenomenal income, the owners of the lots and buildings by the side of the tracks have shared the increase in value without being subject to the cares and burdens of a control by municipal authorities. The freedom which the owners of the lands enjoy affords a pleasing contrast to the restrictions placed upon the street car owners, and those restrictions, as many of us have had occasion to see, are not always the determinations of calm reason, but sometimes proceed from ignorance, jealousy or revenge.