Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

W A TSON 'S EDIT OSIALS - - - ■ - - - - - -- - - .. ■■ - ■. - ■ - - • - - ' ■■■■>. WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN Newspaper Devoted to the Advocacy of the Jeffersonian Theory of Government. 1 published BY ~~ SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: SI.OO PER YEAR ™OS. E. WATSON and J. D. WATSON, Advertising Rates Furnished on Application. K/ Editors and Proprietors U]/ ’ Twple Court Building, Atlanta, Ga. £n “” J “ “”“ n ‘ l I » Bj ■———l , 7’w BY ATLANTA, GEORGIA, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1907. Why Toolish? The Atlanta Journal says, editorially, that ; it would be a “foolish thing” for the Governor to call the Georgia Legislature into extra ses sion. Why so? The Atlanta Journal can not deny that, on the whole, the work done at the regular ses sion was an extreme disappointment to the reform element, which united to make Hoke Smith Governor. The Jeffersonian made due allowance for the difficulties under which the new administration labored, and gave due cred it to Governor Smith for his strenuous ener gy in wresting from an adverse Legislature the little that was done in the way of reform. The Candler-Overstreet bill is a good law, if properly enforced, but it is nothing, other wise. We did not favor the increase in the number of Commissioners, nor do we now think that the increase was either necessary or wise. In that respect, we thotfght the Senate was right and the administration wrong. But, after all, that was a detail; and while the two additional Commissioners will cost the State, each decade, a big pile of money which could be spent to better purpose, we were not dis posed to harp on the subject. But whqp the Atlanta Journal objects to the extra session on the score of the expense, and characterizes it as “foolish,” we cannot help smiling at its attitude. Atlanta politi cians don’t seem to mind the expense when it comes to creating more well-paid offices; but when those who think that the pledges made to the people ought to be kept in good faith, even if we have to re-assemble the Legislature, why, the Atlanta politicians suddenly become as parsimonious as though they themselves were expecting to pay the expenses. What an absurd subterfuge it is, to say that we must not give the people what we promised them, because it will cost too much! Would we have dared to talk that way last summer? M M * On Trial Tor Its Life. “Reform within the dear old Party,” is on trial in Georgia—on trial for its life. Take care what you do, Messrs. City Editors of Democratic dailies! You are playing with fire, when you tell the country people that they must wait pa tiently another generation, or so, for those Reforms which, last summer, were scheduled for arrival in June, 1907. Now, you tell us to be patient: “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” etc. Why, oh why! didn’t you pipe that tune to the Country-folks last summer? Why didn’t you remind us that it required six hundred years, or such a matter, to build imperial Rome? Why didn’t you then say, “Let well enough alone”? That’s what the Old Gang said, last year. Pray don’t purloin the Old Gang’s ammunition chest. If there is nothing for the Legislature to do now, there was nothing to complain of a year ago, a That’s the case, in a nut shell. Do you ask, “What is it that anybody wants done?” The Jeffersonian respectfully refers you to your editorials of last year. LISTEN! When you make it possible for men to smile scornfully as they refer to the unredeemed pledges made last summer, you give a black eye, a fatal stab, to the policy of “get your reforms inside the Democratic Party.” If you don’t quit this astonishing talk about “letting well enough alone,” and of “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” you will make it utterly .impossible for Bryan, or any other Democrat, to ever be President. Mark what we tell you, Gentlemen. You are driving nails into the coffin of “Get your-Reforms-inside-the-Democratic-Party.” HMM Toll of Honor. The Jeffefsonian will publish each week the names of a few of those who have been its most active friends in extending its circulation. This week we select the following: General Wm. Phillips, Marietta, Ga. Sam B. Tarver, Bartow, Ga. L. L. Winter, Gracewood, Ga. J. O. Garra*son, Ludowici, Ga. T. J. Shields, Vineland, Ala. H. J. Mullens, Franklin, Tenn. R. E. Thompson, Toomsuba, Miss. Thos. J. Hall, Montgomery, Ala. Dixon & Lankford, Chillicothe, Mo. (To be Continued.) HMM To the Lalvyers of the Land. Gentlemen, why do some of you waste time on small cases, when you might be busy with big ones? The public roads are occupied by corpora tions which have no right to be there. These roads run through the land of citizens who are ignorant of their rights. They have been bluffed by the Yankee Corporations. The Legislature had no power to legally grant Right-of-Way through anybody’s land. County Commissioners and Ordinaries have no such right. Any such grant is a mere nullity. Why not inform each citizen whose land has been seized by the Telegraph and Tele phone Companies, what his rights are, and take his case against the trespassers? • • • • The lands which these corporations have seized, without compensation to the owners, are worth millions of dollars to the bluffers. Why not compel these corporations to pay for the Right-of-Way, or to get out? Sue them for the value of the Right-of-Way, or ask for a Writ of Mandamus to oust them, or try them with an Injunction, or with an Ejectment proceeding. Whenever a test case is made, the bluffers will “coms across.” • • • • These insolent corporations know very well that they had no right to dig holes in the land and set their poles therein. They know that their lines exist at the mercy of the land-own ers. For, the Public Road is a mere Easement, carrying no Title. The soil of the Public Road belongs to the landowner. Above and below is his—“high as heaven, deep as hell.” Everybody has the right to pass on, over and along the road; NO BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO STOP AND STAY. If the road is changed, the old roadbed at once becomes a part of the landowner’s field, to be used by him, exclusively, for all legal purposes. The Telephone and Telegraph Com panies do not travel along the roads, they stop and stay. They put obstructions in the way of travel lers. They dig holes in the owners’ soil and occupy them, and this is not only an invasion of the legal rights of the owners of the soil, but an invasion of the rights of the Public. Frequently the poles and wires blow down, across the road, making the same dangerous to travel, therefore they interfere with the Easement.which the public has in the highway. • • • • When a private citizen allows a public road laid out through his place, he does not contem plate that corporations, or individuals, will come and live in the road. THE TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANIES ARE LIVING IN THE ROAD. If the Telephone and Telegraph Companies can seize the public highway, without com pensation previously paid to the owners of the land, why cannot the railroads do it? These corporations are private citizens— where do private citizens get the right to seize private property for their own use? The Legislature, itself, could not legally come down to your place, and dig holes in the high-way, to set up a line of poles. The Ordi nary has no legal right to do it. The County authorities have no right to do it. Everybody will admit that much. Then, how can the Legislature, or any County, or State authority, give a private corporation the right to do what they, themselves, have no right to do? The question answers itself. Suppose the requisite legal steps were taken to discontinue the Public Road which runs through your place—what would be the stat us of the Telegraph or Telephone Companies which have dug holes in that road? The law is plain and undisputed, as to what becomes of the land which has been occupied by the highway. It reverts, for all legal pur poses, to the owner of the adjacent soil. But when it reverts to his use, there are the poles and the wires of these two corpora tions, occupying the land above the surface, on she surface, and under the surface. Do the corporations continue to have the right to occupy the land, when the road has been discontinued? Os course not