Gloucester County Democrat

AUTOS SHOULD NEVER BE MADE NUISANCE

Representatives of the state board of agriculture, the state horticultural society and the Highway Protectors' association have addressed to Senator Jackson of Middlesex county an open letter giving the reason why they ask for the passage of the automobile bill, Senate 64, which was introduced last week by Senator Jackson.

The bill is an amendment to the act defining motor vehicles, approved March 3, 1903. The bill was drawn by committees of the bodies named.

The proposed amendment provides for the registration of all motor vehicles, and that no person under 18 years of age shall operate any such vehicle. Requires registration number on front and rear, registration fee to be $1. No vehicle is to be permitted if geared to a higher speed than 20 miles an hour, or that weighs when loaded more than 20,000 pounds. Municipalities are given power to pass speed ordinances, within the above limit, medium speed to be six miles per hour. This provision is not contained in the present law, and this has caused considerable trouble in the past.

The proposed amendment also provides for the taxing of the machines by local boards of assessors. Any police officer may arrest; $25 fine for the first arrest, fine and imprisonment for subsequent offence. In view of the acute condition of the automobile situation at present, caused by the agitation over the Frelinghuysen bill, the letter to Senator Jackson is interesting. It says:-

"We think that if the automobile has come to stay it must act in harmony with all other users of the roads. It should not be allowed to be a nuisance, selected as such in its treatment, nor should it be asked to pay for so continuing. It should not be allowed to do unnecessary damage to the roads, either by going at high speed or by reason of its mechanism or its wheel tires, and when it does no special damage to the roads it should not be asked to pay any special tax for road repairs. The public should pay for the road repairs and not special or privileged class.

"We do not believe in licensing automobiles for the sake of revenue, in the return for which speeding privileges are to be given. The argument will be advanced that as the state bargained for the revenue the persons paying it invested in machines that could attain the speed, and when the repeal of that class of legislation is demanded it will be said that it is not fair to- repeal the speeding laws after so much money has been invested in automobiles designed to go fast. From this point the argument will be pushed to the threadbare vested rights basis.

"We have provided for a registration as distinguished from a license at a nominal fee of $1, and this is to be paid, not for revenue, but, under the police power of the state, to provide for identification of the owners of the machines. We object to the licensing of vehicles as a class because it makes it possible to license any other class of vehicles; retaliatory movements can be started to license all sorts of vehicles which have heretofore had the free and uninterrupted use of the highways, and the end of it might result in legislation saying that certain vehicles cannot use the highways at all.

"We do not want to lay a basis for discrimination in vehicles, as such a movement would lead to a division of the highways into two classes, one for pleasure and the other for business purposes. The fine roads were built for the general, not the special, development of all the interests of the state. We are opposed to high license. as it may have a tendency so make the use of the automobiles as commercial machines too expensive to use. These machines should be kept in a position to be used as a cheap freight carrier, milk to the creamery. horticultural and agricultural products to market and other necessities back to the farm. * * * We do not want to see a high license put on the automobiles, so that the farmer and the business man can- not pay for the privilege of using these. machines for commercial purposes on the public highways.

"The landowner on a New Jersey road owns it to the middle of the road, subject to the public easement; in other words, the landowners' right is only subtracted from by the public user. The legislature has very uniformly placed in the local officials the power of deciding what public use can be made of the highways. That is to say, gas, water, telegraph, telephone and trolley companies get their permission to exclude some one else by local authority.

The present automobile legislation has permitted the whole system of state roads to be so appropriated that the landowner is not only diminished in his rights, but they have been entirely taken away from him; but you may notice, however, there has been left with the local authorities the right to lay taxes for the repair of the. roads.

"The present automobile law has not been, and never can be, enforced. We know of no other law that compels a law- breaker to be arrested only by corroborative testimony. It requires two witnesses to proceed under the present law. The automobile owner's word is good under the statute, while no citizen's word can be taken unless corroborated. * * *

The letter is signed by Charles Collins. Moorestown; George De Camp, Essex Co.; Charles D. Borton, Marlton, and J. Blanchard Edgar, committee of the state board of agriculture; Dr. J. B. Ward, Newark, and S. B. Ketcham, of Trenton, committee of the state horticultural society; William Fitzrandolph, New Market; Edward S. Savage, Rahway; Spencer Weart, Jersey City; Adria Vermeule, New Brunswick, and William J. Terrell, Burlington, committee of the Highway Protectors' association.