ROADS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE OF ROADS,

Monday, February 28, 1927.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Cassius C. Dowell (chairman) presiding.

We

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. have met this morning for the purpose of hearing Congressman Stevenson, of South Carolina, on the bill, H. R. 14929, to provide for repair and maintenance of post roads which are not main State highways, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that 20 per centum of the road fund allotted by the Federal Highway authorities to South Carolina be used for repair and maintenance on roads traveled by the rural letter carriers in that State upon their regular routes which are not main or interstate highways. That such use shall be made by the regular State and county road authorities.

Mr. Stevenson, the committee will be glad to hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. STEVENSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the constitutional basis upon which the appropriations for public highways were entered upon was that provision of the Constitution which provides that Congress shall have the right and power to establish and maintain post offices and post roads. We are appropriating a very large amount of money annually for that purpose. During seven years there has been appropriated and apportioned to the congressional district which I represent, the fifth district of South Carolina, the sum of $996,000, which amount has been actually expended in that district. There are post roads, or roads on which mail is carried in that district, all of them being public roads, to the extent of 4,069 miles, but of those post roads there have been only 787 miles that have gotten any part of this appropriation of nearly $1,000,000. In other words, only 19 per cent of the post roads has received any funds at all, but the money has been spent upon the through highways which are promoted by the automobile associations. As I have said, none of this money is being used on 81 per cent of the post roads in my district.

I have introduced this bill without any hope that it would pass at this session of Congress, but in the hope that the Congress would meet the subject that is presented here, and that in the next bill authorizing another five-year appropriation period there might be contained some restriction which would require some of this money to be expended on the less important post roads, or, in other words, the highways that are used by the postal carriers, but which are not main through highways. As I have said, the whole thing has been

1

subordinated to the convenience and enjoyment of those who want to go through the country at 50 miles per hour, leaving their dust for everybody, and running over everything that gets in their way. That is the situation down in South Carolina. We have also put some fire under the Legislature of South Carolina, with the aid of these rural carrier boys, and they are now considering legislation that would require the spending of at least 20 per cent of the amount of money apportioned to the State on these cross-country post roads. Mr. GARDNER. Do you mean 20 per cent of the money apportioned to the State?

Mr. STEVENSON. Out of the Federal Treasury; yes. As I said before you came in, in the last seven years there have been nearly $1,000,000 apportioned to the roads of my district, but that on 81 per cent of the post roads in my district there has not been a cent expended. The money has been expended on only 19 per cent of the post roads in my district.

Mr. GARDNER. Would you mind my saying a few words along that line?

Mr. STEVENSON. Certainly not.

Mr. GARDNER. I have had some communications this year from my State about the rural mail routes, and there is quite a good deal of complaint over the country about the rural mail routes. In some sections of the country it appears that it is almost impossible for the localities to keep up those rural routes properly out of their own pockets or out of their own taxes, and I have sometimes thought that it would be well for the committee to think about the question of whether, or not, some plan could be devised to meet that situation. I would rather see an additional appropriation provided for that purpose, under another heading, for keeping up the rural mail routes. In States where they do not need all the money for construction, it is all right to have a part of this appropriation apportioned to that purpose, but I would like to see an additional amount provided, just in the same way as the other appropriation, but to be used in keeping up the rural mail routes.

Mr. STEVENSON. I want to have some money provided for the mail routes that are not main through highways. As I have said, the justification of the United States Government for going into this road work is its constitutional power to establish and maintain post office and post roads. In my own State and district, they have apparently taken money away from the post roads and put it on the great through highways, so that, at the present time, only 19 per cent of the post roads in my district get anything out of it, and 81 per cent of those roads do not receive 1 cent from that source.

Mr. PEERY. Who is doing that?

Mr. STEVENSON. My bill provides that 20 per cent of the fund shall be devoted to such roads.

Mr. GARDNER. That is really the law-that this money shall be expended on the main State highways.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law, as I understand it, 7 per cent of the roadways of the State are receiving Federal aid now, which 7 per cent is designated by the State highway commission of the State, Mr. STEVENSON. I know that, and the State highway commission, as long as they can do with the fund as they please, will put all of the money that the Federal Government gives them, or nearly all of it,

m

on these other roads. They will put it on from 10 to 20 per cent of the mail routes, and leave the balance of them to take care of themselves. Mr. HUDSPETH. That is what they are doing in Texas.

Mr. STEVENSON. The rural carriers are organizing in my country for the purpose of making them do something along this line. For instance, I sent to each rural letter carrier in my district a letter reading as follows:

I have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to require the State and county road authorities to allot certain portions of the road funds received from the Government to cross-country roads, which are rural routes.

I want full information on this matter, and will ask you to kindly answer the question below, and send your answer to me as soon as convenient and oblige. In my letter two questions were propounded, with a blank space left for the answers as follows:

1. How many miles are in your route?

The answer in this instance was 26.6 miles.

The second question was:

How many on an official highway?

The answer to that query in this letter was 6.

Out of the 162 letter carriers in my district to whom this letter was addressed, I received answers, almost by return mail, from 159. They gave the information, and they are hot after it. They have a good organization, and they have gone after the legislature. In my district they have bills pending from each county requiring the authorities to use at least 20 per cent of the amount that the Federal Government apportions to the State on the highways that are not main highways, but on which the mail is carried.

Mr. GARDNER. The State legislature would not have any authority to make that kind of law.

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes; it does. The State legislature in South Carolina does that. It may not have the authority, but it does it. It does as it pleases with this fund. It puts that money where it pleases. We are trying to put this limitation on them, and this is the way we are proposing to manage that. We provide that they apportion at least 20 per cent of the amount allotted to the State by the United States Government, to these cross-country roads. We do not require them to apportion Federal funds to those roads, or how much of the Federal funds they may apportion to these roads, but ultimately that must be fixed.

Mr. GARDNER. Does not this raise the question of State's rights? Mr. STEVENSON. No.

Mr. PEERY. You would direct the different States as to how they shall spend the money on roads.

Mr. ROBSION. We have already provided what roads they shall put this money on.

Mr. STEVENSON. That is the Federal money. Of course, you have a perfect right to designate where the Federal money shall go. Mr. ROBSION. Not a dollar of it can be put on any road in any State without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, or not one dollar of Federal money.

Mr. STEVENSON. These States will have to agree as to what they are going to do with the money, and as to what they are going to do for these highways on which the mail is carried. I simply wanted to

make my statement to the committee, which I have done. I want the legislature to understand that we are behind these R. F. D. boys in this matter. These rural letters carriers are mighty good hands at getting something done.

Mr. GARDNER. There is one good thing that this Federal aid does in allowing the money to be used on the main market highways through the various States, and in keeping them up, and that is that it does permit the States and counties to allot their money to other roads, and in that way the counties and States can better take care of their post roads.

Mr. HUDSPETH. But, as was pointed out by Judge Stevenson, they are putting all of that money on the main highways. That is exactly what they are doing, to the detriment of these other roads on which rural delivery service has been installed.

Mr. ROBSION. They must do that under the law.

Mr. HUDSPETH. It is a discrimination against this other class of roads.

Mr. STEVENSON. That is what I am trying to prevent.

Mr. ROBSION. The Federal Government may aid in road building for two purposes: One purpose is to encourage highway construction, and the other is to bring about a unified system of highways, so that one can travel over the entire country. Therefore, we have provided that a certain part of it must go to those main highways, and that another part of it may go to what we call inter county seat highways, or secondary highways.

Mr. GARDNER. I would hate to see the Federal law seriously changed because it is working a great good. I would not like to see it complicated in any way, but, at the same time, I would like to have a system whereby the heavy rural routes could be provided with a little more money. It seems to me that it could be done independently of these other provisions. I know that in a lot of States they can not well afford to give up the work of completing the main market highways. It seems necessary to go ahead with that.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Many of these rural routes are just as important as these so-called main highways; yet, in my State they have been absolutely neglected. They are putting the license money on those main highways.

Mr. STEVENSON. Is any State doing that?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes.

Mr. ROBSION. May I ask the gentleman from South Carolina what part of its taxes his State puts on highways each year?

Mr. STEVENSON. I do not remember the figures, but the amount is very much more than that received from the Federal Government. Mr. ROBSION. As a practical question, I do not see how it makes much difference. My State pays out, say, $10,000,000 on roads, in addition to the Federal fund, and it does not make much difference upon what roads you put the Federal money.

Mr. STEVENSON. That is right. It does not make any difference at all but some measure should be prescribed and the State should live up to that

Mr. ROBSION. That is the practical proposition, because if you put the Federal funds on certain roads, and then the State puts, say $10,000,000 on other roads