ROADS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ROADS, Monday, February 15, 1926. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Cassius C. Dowell (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we have met this morning for the purpose of taking up general legislation for the authorization of appropriations for Federal aid under the general law. There are a number of bills before the committee, and we are ready now to hear those who desire to be heard on this proposed legislation. STATEMENT OF W. C. MARKHAM, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS Mr. MARKHAM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in order that I may make as brief as possible what I have to say, I have put it more or less in manuscript form. As respresentatives of the State highway departments of the Nation we are appearing before your honorable committee to render an account of the cooperative work being carried on between the States and the Federal Government as authorized by the Federal highway act of 1921 and all subsequent legislation. We also desire to discuss with you the features included in the various bills introduced in this session of the House of Congress which have been referred to your committee for recommendation. Before entering into details concerning these bills we wish to review the work accomplished to date under existing legislation as well as consider objections raised to the Federal participation with the States in highway construction. Since we last appeared before you, objections have been made on the floors of Congress to the continuation of this work on the grounds that it is not (a) constitutional, (b) the funds are not equitably distributed, (c) certain States are overtaxed to aid other States, (d) the Federal Government is furnishing funds on too large a system of interstate roads, and (e) the Federal appropriations are too large, causing the States to overburden themselves to meet the Federal allotments. Since there are some Members of the Congress who are here for the first time, others who have not given much attention to this subject, and there has been much space given in the public press from certain quarters in opposition to the work, it might be well to take a few moments to review the situation. 1 THE CONSTITUTION There are those who, while admitting that there is plenty of constitutional authority for your action, say that these are only excuses for the Federal expenditure of funds for road purposes and not obligations. Others flatly deny the constitutional authority and pass the total obligations on to the States. But there were those in the beginning of our national life who had visions of interstate highways as nation developers, for as early as 1803 the Cumberland Pike was planned by Congress. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Clay, Calhoun, and Webster all maintained the constitutional authority, as well as the national need, for Federal activities in highway improvements. But a short time after the construction of the Cumberland Pike it was turned over to the States, which likewise got weary and in turn passed it on to toll companies. And then for half a century the much vaunted "local control" was given a most excellent "try out." The result of all of which was that the only free public highways for years were those which were impassable during the unseasonable weather. The free highways were the byways. It was not until 1891 that the States began a real program of road construction, and New Jersey has the honor of being the first State to create a State highway department. Two years afterwards the Federal Government appropriated $10,000 to establish the office of road inquiry, and for eight years she kept on "inquiring." At the end of that time it changed the name to the office of public roads. The constant growth of State highway departments naturally gave a larger vision of highway requirements, and in 1912 Congress created a commission to investigate the problem as to whether the Federal Government had a real duty in the matter. At this point I wish to present to you a booklet that we have published, entitled "Federal Responsibility for Our Highways." On pages 11 and 12 you will find a detailed summarization of the report of your commission to Congress. For three years that committee made a thorough investigation and finally gave a favorable report. I quote from their report as follows: CONGRESSIONAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL POST ROADS Under authority of act of Congress of August 24, 1912, and continuing acts of March 4, 1913, and March 9, 1914, a joint committee of the United States Senate and House of Representatives was created, and conducted an investigation into the subject of Federal aid in the construction of post roads. The personnel of the committee was as follows: Chairman, Senator Jonathan Bourne, jr., of Oregon; Senator Bois Penrose, of Pennsylvania; Senator Asle J. Gronna, of North Dakota; Senator Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia ; Senator Lee S. Overman, of North Carolina; vice chairman, Representative D. W. Shackleford, of Missouri; Representative R. Gordon Lee, of Georgia ; Representative D. J. McGillicuddy, of Maine: Representative M. B. Madden, of Illinois; Representative R. W. Austin, of Tennessee. Hearings were held by the committee, and the final report by Chairman Bourne was submitted to the Senate and House in January, 1915. A strong presentation of the reasons for Federal aid is contained in the report, which says in part: "All the arguments that have been here presented showing the value of the construction and maintenance of good roads are of equal weight in support of the plea for Federal aid in this good cause. Experience has demonstrated that past methods are inadequate to accomplish desired results. To the original plan of leaving highway construction and maintenance to the several localities State participation has been added in nearly every State in the Union, but even this has not proved to be sufficient, and the demand for Federal aid has become general and insistent. "National participation in the good-roads movement is justified, moreover, on more extensive grounds. The activity of the National Government would more strongly emphasize the importance of the attainment of good roads, would establish higher standards, and to some extent would shift the burden of expense from the rural resident to the inhabitants of the city. 66 Because the Nation stands higher in the esteem of the people than does any State or community, and because the Nation usually gives its attention to the larger and more important works for the promotion of the common welfare, everything in which the Nation participates naturally assumes a more important character. It is for this reason that when the Government undertakes the good-roads movement that movement will immediately be accorded in the public mind a far higher importance than it has to-day. Each individual throughout the length and breadth of the United States will then give more careful thought and more earnest effort to the good-roads movement. "That national participation will establish higher standards will scarcely be questioned. Presumably those officers of the National Government who are charged with the duties and responsibilities of promoting public-road improvement are men chosen from among the leaders in this line of work. They are men who presumably have devoted years to the study of practical and scientific problems of road improvement and to the investigation of the experience of road builders in foreign lands. The more direct participation of the National Government, therefore, should bring the attention of road builders throughout the country to the highest standards of road construction. We believe that this can be accomplished without building up an autocratic bureau vested with dictatorial power to which the road authorities of the United States would be subservient." A significant indication of the state of public opinion was obtained in response to a letter sent by the joint committee to a large number of newspapers, commercial organizations and granges asking for a statement of the consensus of opinion on the subject of Federal participation in highway development. Following is an extract from the report: 66 The letter of inquiry made no reference to any particular plan for Federal aid, but sought to ascertain the trend of public opinion in general. "Newspaper editors generally ascertained and communicated the consensus of opinion in their communities; commercial organizations and granges held meetings, discussed the questions presented and adopted resolutions setting forth their views. Replies representing 100,000 individuals came from every State in the Union, and, since the requests for opinions were made without discrimination and the answers received were from all parts of the United States, the responses show, with reasonable accuracy, the consensus of public opinion on the subjects mentioned. Ninety-seven per cent of the replies received favored Federal aid and 3 per cent were against it." Recent discussion on the floors of Congress as well as certain public addresses and published articles would lead some to believe that the Congress had not made a thorough investigation of this subject. It should be noted in passing, however, that the joint committee as then constituted has but two Senators, Swanson and Overman, and two Representatives, Lee and Madden, still in governmental service and they doubtless continue to uphold their report then made. In 1916 Congress made its first real appropriation for highways. Recent discussions on the floor of Congress, as well as certain public addresses and published articles, would lead some to believe that Congress had not made a thorough investigation of this subject. The personnel of Congress has changed greatly since the report of the 1915 committee. There are now but four of this committee— two Senators and two Members of the House-in Government service, who were members of that committee of ten. |