University of Virginia Library

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL AID FOR GOOD
ROADS.

By Representative Stephens of Mississippi.

Extracts from Congressional Record, April 30, 1912.

The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to establish
post offices and post roads. Under this authority post-office
buildings have been erected at a cost of millions of dollars. Yet it
is argued that we have no right under the Constitution to extend
Federal aid in the construction of roads. The word "establish," when
referring to post-office buildings, is held to mean that such houses
can be erected, but when post offices are to be established it is contended
that it means that the Government shall designate over what
road the mail shall be carried, and that the Government has no right
to build roads.

I submit that, as the right to establish post offices and post roads
is given in the same sentence, that as the language makes no distinction
between the right in regard to offices and roads, this shows
clearly that it is not intended by the framers of the Constitution that
"establish" should be given one construction when referring to post
offices and a different and more restricted construction when referring
to post roads.

That Congress has the right to extend aid in the matter of constructing
and maintaining public highways is shown by decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United States, from which I quote:

Supreme Court Decision.

Without authority in Congress to establish and maintain such
highways and bridges, it would be without authority to regulate one
of the most important adjuncts of commerce. This power in former
times was exerted to a very limited extent, the Cumberland or National
Road being the most notable instance. Its extension was but
little called for, as commerce was then mostly conducted by water,
and many of our statesmen entertained doubts as to the existence of

the power to establish ways of communication by land. But since,
in consequence of the expansion of the country, the multiplication of
its products, and the invention of railroads and locomotion by steam,
land transportation has so vastly increased, a sounder consideration
of the subject has prevailed and led to the conclusion that Congress
has plenary power over the whole subject. (California v. Pacific
Railroad Co., 127 U. S. 1, le. 39.)

Also:

Congress has likewise the power, exercised early in this century by
successive acts in the Cumberland or National Road, from the Potomac
across the Alleghanies to the Ohio, to authorize the construction
of a public highway connecting several States. (Lucton v. North
River Bridge Co., 153 U. S. 525-529; Indiana v. U. S., 148 U. S.
148.)

That the Federal Government has the right to extend aid in the
construction of roads was recognized by Jefferson when he said:

During peace we may chequer our whole country with canals, roads,
and so forth. This is the object to which all of our endeavors should
be directed.

Again, he said:

The fondest wish of my heart ever was that the surplus portion
of these taxes should be applied in time of peace to the improvement
of our country by canals, roads and useful institutions.

Henry Clay was always an advocate of internal improvements, and
was in his day the ablest and most persistent advocate of the building
of national roads. He said:

Of all the modes in which a Government can employ its surplus
revenue, none is more permanently beneficial than that of internal
improvements. Fixed to the soil, it becomes a durable part of the
land itself, diffusing comfort and activity and animation on all sides.
The first direct effect is on the agricultural community, into whose
pockets comes the difference in the expense for transportation between
good and bad ways.

Some have argued that this is a subject over which the States
have absolute control, and raise the question of State rights. One
of the greatest advocates of the State rights doctrine was John C.
Calhoun. He saw no encroachment upon the doctrine by Federal
aid to roads. While Secretary of War, in a report to the House on
the roads and canals, he said:

No object of the kind is more important, and there is none to
which State or individual capacity is more inadequate. It must be
perfected by the General Government or not be perfected at all, at
least for many years.

Precedents for Federal Aid.

Let it not be said that internal improvement may be wholly left
to the enterprise of the States and of individuals.

It is interesting to note that in the early days of our country's
history Congress did appropriate money for the purpose of building
roads. In 1806 Congress authorized the construction of a road
from Maryland, known as the Cumberland Road, and various appropriations
for it were made from time to time, aggregating about
$7,000,000. In 1811, 5 per cent of the sales of public land in Louisiana
were given by Congress to that State for the building of roads and
levees; in 1816 a like amount of a similar fund was given to Indiana
for roads and canals; and in 1817 a like sum was given to my own
State, Mississippi, for this purpose; in 1818, 2 per cent of a similar

fund was given to Illinois for roads; in 1819, 5 per cent to Alabama;
in 1820, 5 per cent to Missouri; and in 1845, 5 per cent to Iowa.

Congress also appropriated money for a road from Georgia to New
Orleans, and one from Nashville, Tenn., to Natchez, Miss., as well
as many other public highways.

I think it has been thoroughly shown that Congress not only has
the power but has frequently exercised the power to contribute to
the construction of roads; however, this bill does not authorize the
construction of roads, but simply provides for the payment of a
fixed rental on all roads used by the Federal Government in carrying
the mail, if the road comes up to a certain fixed standard. It is
but right that the Government should pay for anything that it uses,
and in doing this it will encourage the people in the States to improve
their roads.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that there has been so much written and
spoken upon the subject of good roads that there is little, if anything,
new to be said. If I needed any excuse for speaking on this
occasion it would be that it ofttimes requires a repeated statement
of facts to get it firmly fixed in our minds and to arouse us to the
necessity for action.

As I have said, a good deal of opposition to this measure comes
from Representatives of city districts. It is a mistaken idea that no
one but the farmer gets the benefit of good roads. Every citizen of
this Republic will derive direct benefit from the improvement of the
roads of the country, because the products of the farm must be
conveyed over country roads to market, and the consumer must bear
a part of the burden that is laid upon the producer because of bad
roads. Even the railroads are interested in good wagon roads, because
of the fact that in many sections of the country, owing to bad
conditions of the roads, the farmer is forced to convey his products to
the market at such time as he may be able to find the roads suitable
for travel, thereby placing most of the agricultural products for
transportation within a limited time. The farmer is also interested
for the same reason; that is, that he is forced to sell his products
within the same limited time.

We have heard much comment upon the fact that people are leaving
the farm and congregating in the towns and cities. One cause
of this has been the bad condition of the roads. In my judgment,
there is nothing that will tend more to the upbuilding of the country,
making farm life more attractive, than the improvement of the
road. There is no phase of life, either social or economic, which is
not affected by good roads. The value of lands, the attendance of
children at school, the social relations of the community are all affected
by roads. Good roads-make social intercourse and communication
between farm and town less difficult, thus destroying the isolation
of farm life, especially in the winter season. They increase
the productive area by making lands that have not been cultivated
more accessible. They increase values of property, reduce the cost
of transportation, cause greater interest to be taken in farming,
thereby increasing the general prosperity of the country.

Some Results of Good Roads.

Improved roads are breeders of traffic. It is generally found that
new industries, new and greater production, spring up upon the line
of well-built roads, which increase commerce and enlarge business.

On the other hand, bad roads keep a community from developing
and cause material loss in many ways. There are no statistics which
show the loss to the farmer due merely to the greater cost of transportation

over bad roads, but the loss must be enormous; in fact, it
is estimated that it amounts to many millions of dollars each year.
As I have said, every citizen is directly interested in improving the
roads of the country; that the farmer is not the only one benefited,
but if he were I should vote to improve the roads of the country,
because he is the first and most powerful producer of wealth and
he has a right to insist that a portion of the money that he pays
to the Government shall be returned to him by way of benefits from
the Government.

I care nothing for the suggestion made that a few great highways
be built from one end of the country to the other, because I believe
that that will be very largely for the benefit of those who desire to
take pleasure trips in automobiles, and that those who are entitled
to the benefits of good roads, or a very few of them at least, would
receive no benefit whatever. Rather do I prefer to expend money
in order to bring the farmer in closer touch with the towns and
the town man in closer touch with the farmer to the mutual benefit
of each.