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

M. Chairman, if the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Langley]
was right, I am now proceeding to align myself with the minority
of this House, but conscious of the rectitude of my position, entirely
confident that it is not only rational, but soundly Democratic and
soundly patriotic, I cheerfully take the hazard of such a position.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that there is a Member of this
House who has a higher appreciation of the advantages of good
roads than I have. Now and then for years I have shared humbly in
the effort to arouse the people to a better understanding of the economic
and social importance of good highways. I have worked and
in a small way I have spent my own means in an effort to promote
the good-roads movement. My interest in it can not be questioned.

I want to see the roads improved just as fast as the people who
must pay for them can afford the expense of their construction.

I also want to see the best roads that can be built running through
every neighborhood in each of the 48 States. This much it is proper
to say, because an effort has been made—and, no doubt, will be made
again—to create the impression that those who do not sympathize
with this bill are against improved highways.

If the subdivisions of the Federal Government—the States and
the counties—have any proper function whatever, it would seem to
be the construction and maintenance of roads. If there is any reason
for the existence of States and counties, certainly the maintenance
of the means of transportation between counties and neighborhoods
is an obligation, a responsibility, and one that should not
be shunted off on the Federal Government.

This is a proposition to have the Federal Government assume
those obligations.

Supporters of the measure seem to think that the Government of
the United States is an association of individuals altogether different
and apart from those who reside in their congressional districts.
They seem to be under the impression that contributions from
the Federal Treasury are not paid by the people themselves, but
are drawn from some mysterious outside source or deposit. At
least that is the impression that is sought to be made, that must be
made if gentlemen are to reap the political advantage from this ill-considered
measure that they have maneuvered for. I can not so
understand it. I can not, to save me, separate the citizen who is a
taxpayer in the counties and States from the citizen who pays taxes
to the Federal Government. The vast expense of all our governments—National,
State, and local—must be borne by the citizen.
The question that should most concern him is an economical and
wise administration of his public contributions. Whether it filters
through the hands of Federal or State or local agents, he must pay,
and what he ought to do is to see to it that his tax money goes
to its allotted work with the least possible expense. Now, I believe
that whatever is done through Federal agents is apt to be
more expensively done than if handled by a local agent. I believe
that when the public treasure is collected through a system of indirect
taxation more is taken from the people than is absolutely
necessary, and that is spent with less regard for their interests. That
is one of the evils of the indirect or customs-tax system. People seem
to think more of the dollars that they pay directly into the hands
of the tax-gatherers than of the dollars that they pay by a concealed
additional charge on the tobacco they use or the clothes they wear.

Increases Tariff and Customs Taxes.

Pass this bill and customs taxes can never be reduced. All pretense
of economy will be abandoned when a majority of this House
says by its vote that they mean to commit the General Government
to the policy of building highways, conducting a freight express
business, and, ultimately, the ownership and operation of railways.
It makes one skeptical as to the sincerity of those gentlemen who
say they want a simpler and cheaper Government, but invariably
vote for extravagances that compel higher and higher taxes.

I also oppose this measure because it is not needed to secure good
roads. Where the people have the intelligence to understand their
advantages and the energy to do something for themselves they are
getting them.

Vast sums are now being spent for highway development. There
is an enthusiastic and general movement in that direction which is
most encouraging to every advocate of the policy of better highways.

New York State, which great Commonwealth is too independent
and proud to beg the Federal Government to do what she
can do better for herself, and ought to do for herself, has, I understand,
just finished the expenditure of $50,000,000 on her public
roads and is about to undertake the further investment of fifty millions
more in the extension of her highway system. Pennsylvania
and other States have spent or are now spending proportionately
large sums. It is, I am afraid, those States that are laggards in the
discharge of their plain duty that are behind this measure. They
seem to prefer mendicancy to independence.

I further oppose this bill because, in my opinion, it means increasing
appropriations in the future by you, or by more complacent
Members who will follow you here, and, finally, Federal jurisdiction
over State roads. The tendency to concentrate power in the Federal
Government is now almost resistless. Certainly we can not expect
that the Federal power will not follow large Federal appropriations.
Jefferson, who sought to magnify the importance of the States and
to preserve local self-government, had the best of Hamilton in theory,
but in practice, when associated with the temptation of large appropriations,
it begins to appear that the latter will win. We are bartering
away the dignity of the States and exchanging a great constitutional
birthright for a Federal mess of pottage.

To me it appears perfectly plain that the States can not retain
dignity and importance while they avoid all the responsibility of
that position.

Method Not Adequate to Promote Good Roads.

I also object to this bill because, although it will cost an enormous
amount, it is wholly inadequate for the purposes for which it
was designed. When you apply the maximum rental per mile to the
whole of any particular rural postal delivery route it will not be
discoverable. To spend $25 per mile per year will be, in my judgment,
sheer and inexcusable waste. It will cost the General Government
dear, but is not enough to tempt any locality to the development
of a better road system. It would be a mere suggestion to
the local authorities to apply for more, and would, I feel sure, lead
to a complete abandonment of local or State effort.

Mr. Chairman, that, to me, is one of the most deplorable features
of this bill. I believe it will paralyze the good-roads movement. I
believe that no State not yet equipped with an admirable and excellent
system of highways will undertake to do anything for itself,
can be inspired to do anything for itself, because, when they turn
their eyes toward Washington, they will see gentlemen here clamoring
for appropriations out of the Federal Treasury to do for them
locally what the obligation in honor and decency rests upon them
to do for themselves.