University of Virginia record :: October 1, 1915 :: University of Virginia Library

Mr. Chairman, the era of national aid to State roads has arrived,
and whatever form the opposition to that policy may take, whether
the form of constitutional quibbles, or form of freak or humorous
amendments, such as propositions to pay for the use of the sidewalks
in the cities, or the form of amendment ostensibly in aid of the bill,
but really an embarrassment to the true friends of the measure, who
have labored in season, and out of season to put this principle into
working shape, these efforts one and all will be found as futile to stop
the progress of this movement, as Mother Partington's mop proved
to be as a weapon of defense in her famous contest with the encroaching
waves of the Atlantic Ocean. This bill rests upon constitutional
authority, and its operation will interfere with no single
one of those State functions whose beauties and merits have been
so eloquently acclaimed by some of the participants in this debate.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madden] spoke of the delight
with which he paid his local taxes in aid of good roads. It is not
proposed to interfere with the exquisite pleasure of that experience,
or to take anything from its felicitous charm. Under this bill he
may not only continue to pay local taxes with all the pleasurable emotions
attendant on that operation, but when so minded he may increase
the joy of that process by increasing his contributions to the
roads of his community. There is not a friend of this measure who
will seek to hinder him from pursuing this charming, this patriotic
course of aiding local enterprise, in the rôle of a cheerful giver.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCall] spoke of this
measure as interfering in some wise, not very clearly depicted, with the
functions of the States, and as tending toward centralization. I do
not recall that New England was affected with this form of apprehension
when we passed the law for the White Mountain Reserve,
a proposition for an expenditure of public money which rests upon
a far more narrow base, and is far more tenuously connected with
the Constitution, than the proposition to aid the construction and
maintenance of post roads in the States by means of a national appropriation.
Many gentlemen who have criticized the pending proposition,
have very clearly shown by the nature and character of
their criticism, that they are absolutely unacquainted with the terms,
the purport, and the purpose of this measure.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Slayden] in the course of
his remarks, referred with just pride to the liberal attitude of his
people toward the cause of good roads, and the extent of the local
contributions in aid of that cause. We are mindful of the fact that
many States in this Union have done splendid work in this direction.

The thrill of this movement for betterment of roads is being felt
in every State, and I rejoice that it is so. But may I ask my friend
from Texas, and the other gentlemen from other States who have
assailed this measure how, and wherein, will a supplemental fund derived
from the National Treasury by direct appropriation, paralyze
local effort, or hinder the work of local development?

In many of the States, notably in my own, the roads are established
and maintained by local taxation, with a supplemental State fund
that is afforded upon prescribed conditions. Just a moment ago I
was talking with a Member from New Jersey, and he mentioned
the fact that in his State, as in Virginia, the country and local contributions

to the road fund were supplemented by State aid. In
that instance did State aid paralyze the arm of the community? Did
State aid cause a recession of local activities? On the contrary, as
a direct and immediate result of that coöperation of effort, the State
of New Jersey affords a most splendid illustration of what can be
done by united effort in the way of securing good roads of the highest
type. When county aid is supplemented with State aid, and
State aid is supplemented with national aid, pray tell me why this
aggregate aid may not be efficiently employed, or why national aid
would operate to paralyze local endeavor, when State aid has merely
served to energize it? In the great fight now in progress in the
Mississippi Valley between the States and the Father of Waters, do
the States disdain the help of the Nation on the ground of its paralyzing
effect on local activities?

There is no great nation of the modern world which has not aided
the local communities in respect of both construction and maintenance
of highways, and the nations pursuing this policy are noted
for the excellence of their roads. In this regard the Republic of
France is the wonder of the civilized nations. But to achieve her
present state of supremacy in the matter of improved highways
France, as a nation, has spent over 3,000,000,000 francs upon her
roads. This fact explains in large measure the present prosperity
of that country. A few days ago the French Government called on
its people for bids on a bond issue of $60,000,000. In the briefest
possible time bids aggregating over $400,000,000 were received. Comment
is unnecessary. Today France, which has done so magnificently
in the direction of national aid to roads, has in contemplation
a scheme of canalization of her rivers. This is but another form
of domestic improvement, in aid of internal commerce, and like her
roads, these canals will further increase the facilities and wealth of
that wise and thrifty people.

Why should this great Nation, a Nation that in other respects
stands in the very forefront of the nations, hesitate to pursue a course
that has been pursued in other countries with such splendid results?
Is our authority to enact this measure questioned? Consider for a
moment the authority of the Federal Government over rivers and
harbors. This Nation exercises at present the right to regulate the
height of bridges over navigable streams, to determine whether these
bridges shall be built or not, to provide that bridges if built, may be
built by private corporations, with the right to charge tolls, to provide
for the taking of private property to afford approaches to the
bridges, to provide that feeders leading into channels of interstate
commerce may be constructed, and to that end that the land of private
parties may be condemned.

Community Benefits.

Communities that have built good roads, will find their reward in
this bill. Communities that desire to build good roads, will be encouraged
to go forward. Every community will be stimulated to construct
more good roads, and to transform existing dirt roads into
improved highways, in order to receive the larger compensation attaching
to permanent roads falling in the two first classes. The
critics of this measure seem to fancy that the roads of the States
are to be exclusively constructed, or maintained by the appropriation
which it carries. Nothing of the sort. It is merely a supplement to
local efforts. A permanent road on which the State spends $25 per
mile, per annum, for maintenance, may not be very adequately maintained
by that expenditure. But the expenditure of $50 per annum,

per mile, may be ample for efficient maintenance. It is the purpose
of this bill to afford the additional $25.

The cost of maintenance for a well-constructed dirt road, depends
upon a number of factors, and is a fluctuating quantity. Many of these
roads can be well maintained during a large portion of the year, on
an expenditure of $10 per annum, per mile, and admirably maintained
on an expenditure of $25 per annum, per mile. This bill will afford
$15 per mile, and the local authorities will be required to provide the
additional amount needed to maintain the road to the prescribed
standard.

The State of New York will be entitled to something like $1,000,000
per year when its roads are conformed to the requirements of this
measure. Will the gentlemen from that State who either directly,
or indirectly, are opposing this plan of national aid to State roads,
undertake to tell this House that this large sum will be rejected,
or that if received as a supplement to State contributions, it will
not give impetus to the State and local activities in the great cause
of road improvement?

The State of Texas is interested in this measure to the extent
of about $800,000 per annum. That great State boasts of what it
has done in the way of road building, and it is conceded that its
record in this respect is altogether creditable. Will the Representatives
from Texas tell this House that the sum of $800,000 as an addition
to their State and local contributions, is a negligible item, or
that once in hand this considerable sum, will not energize and stimulate
the whole scheme of road building in that State? If road building
is a State function, a material increase of road funds will induce
a more efficient discharge of that function. Throughout the Union, in
every State, and in every community, the stimulating effect of the
compensation contemplated by this bill will be noticeably felt. The
sentiment of the country favors permanent roads, and the general
tendency is toward their construction, but for the present many communities
are unable to build them. During the transition era, and
until the existing roads are replaced by the ultimate form of permanent
roads, the dirt roads should be maintained in the form most
suitable for efficient use. Hence the provision of the bill in aid of
dirt roads.