 | University of Virginia record October 1, 1915 |  |
FINANCIAL BURDEN.
By Representative Fitzgerald of New York.
Extracts from Congressional Record, April 29, 1912.
I made the statement, that States are building a system of State
highways. I intend to discuss it more fully. It illustrates the tendency
and the desire of localities to escape the burden they should
assume. In 1899, if I recall correctly, a law was enacted in New
was extended to localities. The law provided that 50 per cent of
the cost of construction should be paid by the State, 35 per cent
by the county, and 15 per cent by the town. Very soon it was
ascertained that to some of these communities the burden was irksome,
or in excess of what the people desired to contribute. Good
roads were desired and the wish was equally strong that the cost
should be borne other than by the localities benefited. An amendment
was enacted by which it was provided that the contribution
of the counties and towns should be 2 per cent on the assessed valuation
of real property in the county and 1 per cent in the town,
but in no instance should the county or town pay in excess of the
35 and 15 per cent proportion. The result is that in some instances
the State is expending 91 per cent of the cost of the roads and the
localities 9 per cent. The tendency is natural; it is human. The
desire to make some one else pay is overpowering. Shift the burden
from locality to the State, from the State to the Federal Government.
It is as effective to avoid the eventual burden as the ostrich
in escaping danger by hiding its head in the sand. The State
of New York is expending $6,000,000 annually on its roads, and with
this enormous expenditure it has not enough roads, if all used by
the postal service were of class A, to receive, under this bill, 20
per cent of what it is itself expending.
But my objection to this legislation is fundamental. It is not
predicated upon expenditure alone. It is aimed chiefly at the theory
upon which the legislation is based. It introduces a new, a novel,
a curious principle into our government system. It purports to
require the Federal Government to pay localities for the privilege
of furnishing some service to the people which is legitimately within
the proper functions of the Federal Government. It is based on
the theory that the Federal Government is something distinct, separate,
apart from, superior to, and superimposed upon the people of
the country; that it has some means of acquiring wealth or resources
or moneys other than by obtaining them by taxation from the people,
to be distributed for their benefit. The gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Shackelford] spoke of the Federal Government being
liberal in its treatment of the people. This is a strange doctrine to
be enunciated by a Democrat. It is a peculiar notion that seems to
be spreading. The Government should be liberal in its treatment
of the people! Such a statement is strange to men who have
been brought up to believe and to realize and who know what
our Government is and means. Free institutions are organized by
the people in order to maintain order and permit them to live in
the most orderly, free, and happy manner possible consistent with
the rights of others, and are predicated upon the theory that all
men have certain inalienable rights, and that to preserve them governments
are organized.
Not Function of National Government.
This idea that the Federal Government is something like the Government
of the Russias, or some other imperial government, in which
the people are subjects, beneficiaries, supplicants, and mendicants,
who beg and plead as if some great father would be persuaded to
scatter his resources with generous hand and give to the people
something apparently not belonging to them is a new and unheard-of
and astonishing doctrine in our land. Mr. Chairman, why not charge
the Federal Government for the privilege of conducting Federal
troops over country roads and through city streets? If the Federal
of existence? It would be simple for the people to punish the Government
by imposing burdens it could not bear. Under the Constitution
exclusive jurisdiction is placed in the Congress over all
places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the States
required for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings. Under section 355 of the Revised Statutes no money
can be expended upon any site or land for the erection of any public
building, fortification, or similar work unless the consent of the
State is first obtained to the acquisition of the property. Why not
abandon the policy heretofore followed and consent that the Federal
Government shall pay taxes upon its Federal buildings, taxes upon
the land occupied for fortifications, and other public purposes? It
is the same principle underlying this bill carried to the logical conclusion.
It is something new and novel. It is merely a cloak or a
cover to get the hands of the various localities into the Federal
Treasury.
People shut their eyes and dream that the money they take is
to be obtained from some place else than from their own pockets,
but it will come from there eventually and no other place. There
seems to be a widespread notion that the resources of the Federal
Government are boundless, that the Treasury is overflowing. The
methods by which the Federal Government obtains money are indirect
and remote from the people. Its gathering hand is invisible;
yet it takes its mite from every article, from every commodity that
is of use to the people. It may be difficult to trace the tax; that
makes some people the more ready to have it imposed. To enter
this new policy means additional taxes, additional burdens, It is
futile to talk of reducing taxation, of relieving the people from grievous
burdens, of reducing the cost of living, if at every turn we are
to be confronted with some new scheme to filch money from the
Federal Treasury.
Great Expense to National Government.
There is one source of expense to which no one has given much
attention but which is a very important matter. The compensation
for these roads, if there be dispute, is to be fixed by the Department
of Agriculture.
The condition in which the roads are to be maintained is to be
determined by the Department of Agriculture. How is the Department
of Agriculture to obtain the information necessary to discharge
the obligation imposed? Only by the maintenance of a force
of inspectors that shall continuously keep under supervision and observation
all of the roads which will be entitled to compensation
because of their use by the Federal Government. It will require an
army of new employees to swarm through the country. It will be
inevitable that crying abuses will result from such surveillance. Congress
has consistently heretofore refused to pave streets in front,
of public buildings and it has refused to make any contribution for
the construction of sidewalks about its property, and yet gentlemen
now seriously propose to compel the Government to pay the people
of the various localities for the privilege of rendering an important
public service to them. Why not charge the Government for every
public service rendered, in the hope that in some providential manner,
like manna from heaven, funds will come into the Public Treasury?
[Applause.] Mr Chairman, this legislation should not be enacted.
It can not be justified upon any sound theory. It is unwise. It will
lead to evils that will be deplored. It cultivates among the thoughtless
it subjects the Federal Treasury to burdens for nothing
essential to the discharge of its legitimate functions. It is an idle
attempt to get something for nothing. Whatever is expended upon
our roads will be paid for by the people. It will be better if they
keep the work and the expenditure close to home. They may yet
succeed in frittering away rights and privileges of inestimable value,
obtained only by the expenditure of vast quantities of blood and
treasure, for the unsatisfactory boon of a Federal appropriation and a
dominant and irresponsive and unsympathetic Federal Government.
| University of Virginia record October 1, 1915 | |