GOOD ROADS Good roads are avenues of progress, the best proof of intelligence; they aid the social and religious advancement of the people; they increase the value of products; they save time, labor, and money; they are the initial sources of commerce, which swell in great streams and flow everywhere, distributing the products of our fields, forests, and factories. The highways are the common property of the country, their benefits are shared by all, and they are needed by all; they benefit all, and all should contribute to them. SPEECH OF HON. JOHN H. BANKHEAD OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1908 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 49857—7912 Southern Pamph: Rare Book Collec UNG-Chanel Uj SPEECH OF HON. JOHN H. BANKHEAD. RURAL DELIVERY ROUTES. Mr. BANKHEAD, Mr. President, I ask to have read the amendment which I offered to the post-office appropriation bill. The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without objection, the Secretary will read the amend- ment submitted by the Senator from Alabama. The Secretary read as follows: Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. BANKHEAD to the bill (H. R. 18347) making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the fiscal year ending fect 30, 1909, and for other purposes, viz: At the end of line 14, page 27, insert the ollowing : “Provided further, That a sum not to exceed $500,000 of this appropriation may be expended by the Postmaster-General, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, in improving the conditions of the roads over which rural delivery routes are, or may be, hereafter established, to be selected by them for the purpose of ascertaining the possible increase in the territory which could be served by one carrier, and the possible increase of the number of delivery days each year, the amount required for proper maintenance in excess of local expenditure for rural delivery routes, and the relative saving to the Government in the maintenance of rural delivery routes by reason of such improvements: Provided further, That the State or county, or counties, which may be selected for im- provement of rural delivery routes therein under this provision shall furnish an equal amount of money for the improvement of the rural route so selected.’’ Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, the question that I am about to discuss is not a new one. The speedy delivery of the mails and the transportation and distribution of production has claimed the attention of out most enlight- ened and constructive statesmen since the organization of the Government. The transportation and distribution of products is of more importance than production itself. It is the surplus which we sell that makes us richer, adds to the bank accounts, and cancels the mortgage. What the producer con- sumes at home adds nothing to our wealth. It is that which he sells and trans- ports to the market that makes him rich. If the cost of transportation to the producer is equal to the difference between the cost of production and the selling price there.is no profit. Indeed, he is poorer, because his land is being exhausted, his team and his wagon wearing out, the deposits of his mine are being re- moved, his timber is being consumed, and his manufacturing plant is under- going wear and tear, all without net results. In all classes of agriculture and in all lines of manufacturing and trade economy of transportation is an important item in the amount of profit. There are three methods for the transportation of commerce—the railroads, waterways, and the common highways or dirt roads. I need not discuss the first method. It has been the subject of extensive discussion, legislation and judicial construction, with which we are all familiar. Transportation by water has been liberally pro- vided for by Congress. The dirt roads, over which 90 per cent of the internal commerce of the country must be moved first or last, have been sadly neglected. The time has arrived when Congress must meet the great question of national road improvement fairly and squarely and give it that thoughtful and serious consideration which it deserves. The farmers are being aroused, and already the National Grange, with a membership of more than a million farmers, is calling upon us for action in this matter. Another great organization, the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America, is urging legisla- tion in the same direction. Mr. President, the hordes of southern EHurope and the menace of alien races may cast their sinister shadows over our great cities, but, sir, that great, silent, patient element of our population, the Amer- 49857—7912 3 987558 “i ican farmer, is American through and through. The very citadel of American liberty and its most cherished traditions are guarded by the farmers, who are 91 per cent native born and constitute more than one-third of our popu- lation. These men have contributed to the wealth of the United States to an extent which staggers the imagination. The corn crop of 1907 alone was worth $1,350,000,000 ; the hay crop was worth $660,000,000 ; the cotton crop was worth $675,000,000, and the wheat crop was worth over $500,000,000. Mr. President, it will be observed that either one of these great agricultural crops has produced more actual wealth in one year than the combined output of all the gold and silver mines in the world and $100,000,000 more. The grand total of all crops for 1907 was nearly seven and one-half billion dollars, and it is estimated that the farmers of this country have created during the last nine years $53,000,- 000,000 worth of wealth. The value of agricultural crops exported in 1906 was $969,457,306, or 564 per cent of the total exports, and but for the export of agricultural products the balance of trade would have been against the United States by $523,127,533. When the machinations of Wall street, the dangerous practices of high finance, and the injustice of our tariff system bring upon us the woes of financial stringency, industrial depression, and hard times, we must realize that the tillers of the soil form the real basis of our wealth, and that to the creation of real wealth we should lend our aid. But it is not only the rural population that demands aid from the Government in the upbuilding of our public roads. The numerous resolutions of the boards of trade, chambers of commerce, associations of manufacturers, and the open advocacy of many of our great railroad companies, indicate clearly that it only needs an organization of all these forces to bring about the united and effective © efforts of city and country. Modern inventive genius is responsible for a new factor in the problem of transportation, which must be reckoned with in legis- lating for public roads. The automobile industry has now reached $110,000,000 per annum, and the makers and users of automobiles will soon find a plane upon which they can mutually press forward with the farmer in his efforts to obtain better roads. The time will come, during the lifetime of Senators who do me the honor to listen, when the traction engine and the automobile will be utilized on the improved dirt road in hauling to the market farm and forest products at a minimum cost, supplying the place of millions of horses and mules now employed in transportation. Mr. President, it is sufficient to call attention to resolutions passed by the legislatures of Maine, Tennessee, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Alabama, New York, and other States, with reference to national aid, to show how widespread — is the sentiment among our State legislatures upon this subject. When all these powers and factors unite their efforts there will be such an era of in- ternal improvement, of home building, of home beautifying, of wealth creation, that the waste places will be filled, squalid huts will give place to beautiful homes, the desert will blossom as the rose, and all the shocks and crashes of frenzied finance will fall harmless from the bulwarks of our splendid prosperity. ° The objection is made that such legislation would be unconstitutional. For- ‘tunately, for our guidance, the question of national aid is not a new one. We have the precedent of national-aid legislation by Congress while the founders of our Government lived to know and approve of it. The first appropriation made was in 1806, when $30,000 was set aside for the purpose of commencing work on the famous old Cumberland road. These appropriations then con- tinued, with but little interruption, until May 25, 1888, when the last appro- priation of $150,000 was made, which made the total amount expended on road construction during this period about $7,000,000. i March 14, 1818, the House of Representatives passed the following res- olution: Resolved, That Congress has power under the Constitution. to appropriate money for the construction of post-roads, military and other roads ; X s \ and of canals a improvement of waterways. : ; Bea ge eis Mr. President, what was the attitude of the leading statesmen in the early bene of the Republic? Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Mr. Lieper, in Give us’ peace till our revenues are liberated from debt, and then, i ; G , ‘ , if war be necessar ees ieee oy! a aes tae a loan, and during peace we may checker ae 7 vi canals, roads, ete. his i j i bv eee cae eae is the object to which all our endeavors 49857—7912 O James Madison, in a message to Congress, said: I particularly invite the attention of Congress to the expediency of exercising their existing powers, and, where necessary, of resorting to the prescribed mode of enlarging them, in order to effectuate a comprehensive system of roads and canals, such as will have the effect of drawing more closely together every part of our country, by promoting intercourse and improvements and by increasing the share of every part in the common stock of national prosperity. Henry Clay advocated the building of national roads in a speech made in Congress in 1818, in which he said: Of all the modes in which a Government can employ its surplus revenue, none is more permanently beneficial than that of internal improvement. Fixed to the soil, it becomes a durable part of the land itself, diffusing comfort and activity and animation on all sides. The first direct effect is on the agricultural community, into whose pockets comes the difference in the expense of transportation between good and bad ways. Thus if the price of transporting a barrel of flour by the erection of the Cumberland turnpike should be lessened $2, the producer of the article would receive that $2 more now than formerly. Daniel Webster, speaking in the United States Senate in 1830, used the follow- ing language: Under this view of things I thought it necessary to settle, at least for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers of the Government in regard to internal affairs, and I arrived at the conclusion that Government had power to accomplish sundry objects or aid in their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as internal improvement, While it is true that Presidents Madison, Jackson, and Monroe vetoed acts of Congress relating to public roads, it is beyond dispute that the veto of President Monroe was due to a provision giving to the General Government the right of eminent domain and of general superintendence, and this is practically true of the other veto messages. President Jackson held that the right of appropriation was not limited by the specified powers of the Constitution. In his veto mes- sage he said: I have not been able to consider these declarations in any other point of view than as a concession that the rights of the appropriation is not limited by the power to carry into effect the measure for which the money is asked, as was formerly contended. On May 4, 1802, President Monroe, in a veto message to Congress, used the following language: That in whatever sense the term established is applied to post-offices it must be applied in the same sense to post-roads. John C, Calhoun was a staunch advocate of the doctrine of State rights, and believed in a strict construction of the Constitution, but he was equally as pro- nounced in his belief that the Federal Government should take a hand in build- ing and improving our common highways, rivers, and canals. In 1817 he introduced a bill in Congress to provide a fund for the construction of roads and canals, and, in support of this bill, he spoke in part, as follows: Let it not be said that internal improvements may be wholly left to the enterprise of the State and of individuals. I know that much may justly be expected to be done by them; but in a country so new and so extensive as ours, there is room enough for all the General and State Governments and individuals to exert their resources. Many of the improvements contemplated are on too great a scale for the resources of States or of individuals, and many of such a nature that the rival jealousy of the State, if left alone, might prevent. They require the resources and general superintendence of the Government to effect and complete them. : Z But there are higher and more powerful coasiderations why Congress should take charge of this subject. If we were only to consider the pecuniary advantages of a good system of roads and canals it might indeed admit of some doubt whether they ought not to be left alone wholly to individual exertion, but when we come to consider how inti- mately the strength and political prosperity of the Republic are connected with this subject, we find the most urgent reasons why we should apply our resources to them. Good roads and canals, judiciously laid out, are the proper remedy. Let us, then, bind the Republic together with a perfect system of roads and canals. While Secretary of War in 1819 Mr. Calhoun made a report to the House of Representatives on roads and canals, in which he said: No object of the kind is more important and there is none to which State or individual capacity is more inadequate. It must be perfected by the General Government or not perfected at all. It is not necessary for the exercise of a power by the Federal Government that it should be expressly granted in the Federal Constitution, or that it should be “clearly and directly traceable to some one of the specified powers « granted. Any number of powers granted, or all of them, may be combined and considered together, and any power necessary to carry out the general purposes of any, 49857—7912 6 or all, of the power specified, will be considered granted by implication, and as an incidental means of executing the powers specifically granted. (Pennsyl- vania v. Wheeling Bridge Company, 18 Howard (U. 8.), 421.) The Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 1, provides, in part, that— The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. An appropriation of money for the improvement of. the public roads of the country would certainly be for the general welfare of the United States, and it would seem that the Congress is clothed with ample authority, under this clause of the Constitution, to appropriate money for that purpose. In addition to this, Congress has a stronger and more specific warrant for making this appropriation, under the authority conferred by the Constitution “to establish post-offices and post-roads.”’ Cooley, in his book on Constitu- tional Law, says: Every road within. a State, including railroads, canals, turnpikes, and navigable streams, existing or created within a State, becomes a post-road, whenever, by the action of the he tea Department, provision is made for the transportation of the mails upon OY OVELCLE. This provision of the Constitution is growing every year in practical impor- tance and in its relation to the public roads, owing to the extension of the rural delivery service. On August 1, 1882, President Arthur vetoed a bill making an appropriation for rivers and harbors; but the commercial interests of the country, through organizations of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and other business associations, had brought such pressure to bear upon Congress that sentiment was developed in favor of reviving appropriations for rivers and harbors, and this bill was promptly passed over the President’s veto. From that time on Executive favor and all constitutional argument se>m to have yielded in favor of appropriations for river and harbor improvements; but, by a sort of passive acquiescence, it seems to have gone against public roads and highways; and yet the arguments accompanying each of the veto messages, from President Monroe to President Arthur, admitted that the principle of appropri- ating money for roads and rivers and harbors was the same, and the same argu- ments were urged against each. If, then, appropriations for improving our rivers and harbors, involving the same principle as appropriations for improv- ing our roads, is constitutional, why will not an appropriation for roads be constitutional? What valid constitutional objection is there to the one which does not lie against the other? Post-roads and public highways are highways of commerce, aS much so as are railroads or rivers and harbors. They are the small arteries of our com- mercial body, which extend out into the country and gather up and bring to the market, railroad station, and wharf the great volume of the raw products of the country, which are the real constituent elements of our commerce. They are equally indispensable to our commercial growth and welfare, and are equally deserving of the fostering care of our Government. It is argued by many that the question of road improvement should be left entirely to the people of the States. It is argued that l'ederal aid savors too much of paternalism, and therefore the General Government should leave it alone; but this objection is irrational and without foundation. It is not pro- posed to appropriate money out of the National Treasury to aid the people in their private business. It proposes to appropriate public funds for a public purpose, which is not paternalism. Before any State can secure its share, or any portion of its share, of the money appropriated under the Federal aid proposition, it must first show an equivalent amount of self-help and invite the cooperation of the Government. This will be a direct stimulus to the States to put forth their very best efforts. Federal aid, therefore, instead of stifling and causing a relaxation of the efforts of the people of the States, places a premium upon their efforts. If the Government should undertake to furnish us, without cost or individual effort, the necessaries of life, that would be paternalism. If we were asking the Federal Government to prescribe our daily bread, or to provide us raiment to clothe our bodies, that would be paternalism pure and simple. Such a function of the Government would be enervating; it would destroy individ- uality and repress all energy and ambition; but we ask no such fatherly care at the hands of our Government. We only ask that it contribute a portion of 49857—7912 7 the cost of improving our public roads, and, in making this contribution, it will, so far from committing an unwholesome act of generosity, open up new and improved channels to the marts of trade and commerce, stimulate indus- trial enterprise, inspire every citizen of the rural districts with a brighter hope and a higher ambition, and add a new tie to bind him with increased loyalty and patriotism to his country. : | Congress has been exceedingly generous in its appropriations for Cuba, Porto Itico, and the Philippines. It has spent large sums in these island territories for internal improvements, and much of it has been expended on the construc- tion and improvement of the public roads. These appropriations were made to an alien people who add but a meager contribution to our national revenues, have but little more than humanitarian claim upon our Government, and have shown no thrift, no spirit of progressiveness, and-no industrial enterprise or aptitude. These appropriations, it would seem, have found a sanction under our Consti- tution and general public policy. If so, then what valid objection can be inter- posed to appropriating money for a similar purpose to our own people. Our own people deserve the first consideration at our hands. They have demon- strated to the world their superior thrift, energy, industry, and enterprise. It is from them that we derive our national greatness and our national revenues, and they have a right to expect to be first considered and to receive even- handed justice from our Government of its benevolence and the distribution of its revenues. Another reason for national aid is to be found in the fact that nearly all of the great appropriations made by Congress are for projects that do not benefit the rural districts. The shipping interests have had the rivers and harbors im- proved to expedite their business; the cities have been supplied, at a cost of €300,000,000, with post-offices and custom-houses; the railroads have received large appropriations, and have made use of the credit of the Government; millions collected from the people have been loaned to the banks without inter- est, and iron masters have depended upon the Government to construct great locks and dams for facilitating the assembling of materials at cheap rates for making iron. The tariff laws have been shaped to benefit the manufacturers, but none of them are intended to benefit the great American farmer. Some of our ablest statesmen, and many of those most solicitous of the public welfare, often oppose measures which ultimately prove the greatest boon to the people. On the other hand, it has frequently happened that Congress, in its zeal to extend the blessings of our Government to the greatest number, has given its sanction to projects which savor more or less of futile experimentation. Con- gress, however, and I might say wisely so, has been slow to stamp its approval upon such legislative projects, but after they have once been inaugurated, and have met with popular favor, and proved a benefit to the people, it has been equally slow to take any step which would cripple their action or retard their development. Mr. President, let us now consider the rural free-delivery system, which is so intimately connected with roads. What has been the history of this service? The friends of this measure were a long time gaining the ear of Congress, and the question was agitated many years before it received legislative approval. It was regarded by many as an impractical theory, an iridescent dream, so, to give it a trial, Congress, in 1897, appropriated the sum of $40,000, only $10,000 of which was used the first year. This appropriation met with such popular favor, and there was such a demand for rural delivery, that it was not only - renewed, but increased by 25 per cent in 1898. The appropriation of 1898 was increased by 200 per cent for 1899, and an equal rate of increase has continued for each of the eleven years the service has been in operation. During these eleven years they have increased in the aggregate from $40,000, in 1897, to $34,985,000, in 1907. It is stated in the last annual report of the Fourth Assist- ant Postmaster-General that on June 30, 1907, here were 87,728 rural delivery routes in operation, the average, or standard, route being 24 miles. The carriers on the 37,728 routes traveled daily over 901,068 miles of the roads of the country, which is nearly half of the total mileage of the public roads of the United States. Every road over which these mails go is a United States post- road, and, under the Constitution, Congress has authority, and in equity and justice should contribute to their improvement and maintenance. While the extension of this service has been marvelous, it has yet encountered no serious obstacle. It has been confined to communities blessed with good roads. Such communities, however, have been very largely supplied, and the future exten- 49857—7912 8 sion of the service must needs be mostly to communities not having good roads, The Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General, in his annual report for June 30, 1907, to which I have already referred, has this to say with reference to the bearing of good roads on rural delivery : The maintenance of good roads not only insures an early and more expeditious delivery to the patrons residing on that portion of the route last to be served, and from whom most complaints come, but lessens the liability of irregular or suspended service on any part thereof. It was estimated that the carrier who travels a 24-mile route daily, over bad roads, could, with much more ease, travel from 10 to 15 miles additional over good roads. But suppose we take a more restricted estimate and say that the average carrier could travel 6 miles more if we had good roads. This would increase the average or standard route to 380 miles, and would eliminate every fifth carrier now employed, and would also abolish all the crossroads post- offices, both of which would be a direct saving to the Government. By increas- ing the average or standard route to 30 miles, and eliminating every fifth carier, we would reduce the force of cariers by 7,516, which at their salary of $900 per year would be a direct annual saving of $6,764,400, to say nothing of the abolition of the numerous star routes and local post-offices, thereby say- ing to the Government many more millions. It is necessary for the continued growth of this service that something be done toward improving our roads. We can not permit it to be checkmated in its growth. No service rendered by the Government is dearer to the hearts of the whole American people than the free- delivery mail service in our cities and in the rural districts. Our people want this service continued and extended. We want to see rural delivery reach its highest degree of efficiency, so as to add to the charms of our country life. We want it so improved and extended that it will reach out into the remotest corners of our country. The Government sends its mails over 925,248 miles of dirt roads every day in the week. The rural-delivery service would extend over 2,000,000 miles if the roads were improved. As pointed out in the recent report of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General, its efficiency and perfection depends upon the system of roads over which the carrier is required to go. No class of men in the Government service performs more arduous duties and are more poorly paid. They are required to drive their team and wagon over miserably poor, muddy, and oftentimes almost impassable roads, through all kinds of inclement weather, they are required to furnish their own team and equipment and to make an average of 24 miles daily, for which they are paid only $900 a year. An in- vestigation made by the Post-Office Department, about eighteen months ago, shows a moderate estimate of the original cost of horses and vehicles to be about $275, and that an average cost of maintaining an outfit was about $250, making the average annual cost of a carrier’s outfit from $300 to $350. They carry with them a traveling fourth-class post-office, so to speak; they sell Stamps, register letters and packages, receive money orders, and, in a measure, perform all the duties of a postmaster. I believe when we come to increase the Salaries of Government employees, these should be among the first to recetve our consideration. Why should they not be as well paid as the city carrier, who goes over paved streets, and is not required to supply any team or vehicle? I have introduced an amendment to the pending Post-Office bill, increasing their Salary to $1,000 per year, with thirty days’ leave of absence, which I think should pass. : Mr. President, the Government has been generous in its donations to railroads in and through many States. There have been patented to the railroads 44,464,719 acres of public lands. Grants to railroads of a much larger number of acres have been forfeited. The Government has in this way aided in the construction of 14,930 miles of railroads, and the bonds of railroads, amounting to $64,623,512, have been guaranteed, both principal and interest. The Government has from time to time donated for wagon roads 2,014,084 acres of public lands; for canals, 4,500,724 acres, and for river improvement 1,980,593 acres; in all, 53,055,121 acres. The Government has, in cooperation with the States on the lower Mississippi River, appropriated $16,500,000 to aid in the construction of levees and to prevent overflows and the destruction of life and property. No well-informed person would say that the building of levees on the Mississippi River is to improve navigation. an ee A eee pel Senator to suppose for one moment that I do not heartily ppropriations. They have my full sanction. I believe they Ne sel ac and prompted by the most enlightened and constructive Statesmanship. 57—7912 1 e These benefits, to a degree, have been local in their application. What I am insisting upon is a continuation of this wise and beneficial legislation in such a way as to extend its benefits to all the people in every section of our eountry. Mr. President, upon the rural population has fallen the entire cost and responsibility of constructing and maintaining our public roads. It is only to a limited extent, and locally, that there has been legislation which at the present day in any way shifts this burden, and it still rests upon the people of the rural districts. This is inequitable, undemocratic, and in direct viola- tion of the express principles upon which we boast our Government was founded. . No country has good roads, except where the general government has shared in the cost and responsibility of creating and maintaining them. All the coun- tries of Europe which have improved roads have a national system whereby the national government shares in the cost and assists in the supervision of building and maintaining them. Our present system of road administration is largely modeled after that abandoned by other progressive nations more than a century ago. In Hngland road administration began, like our present system, with the smallest unit of government, which originated by an act of Parliament in.1555 and provided for the election of a road surveyor for each parish and for the working of the roads by compulsory labor. The parish was found to be too small as an administrative unit. A history of highways, appearing in the Edinburgh Review, January-April, 1864, contains this statement: Irom the days of Hlizabeth the inconveniences resulting from the maintenance of highways by single parishes have been constantly apparent, and accordingly successive governments, without distinction of politics, made the attempt to combine parishes into highway districts and to transfer the superintendence of their roads to boards employing the services of professional engineers. The decided trend of road administration in England has continued away from localization. Subject to the formation of road districts, it was provided that one-half of the expense of maintaining the roads should be borne by the county, and, finally, in 1882, Parliament provided that one-fifth of the expense of the county authorities should be refunded by a Parliamentary grant. This is also true in its essentials of the development of road administration in the other nations of Hurope, but with us we have continued in vogue a system of penurious localization. We can not escape responsibility for our miserable highways by contending that our Government is young and that we have not been a nation long enough to make the comparison with the nations of the Old World possible, because road building did not begin in France until the great Napoleon inaugurated the system of national highways, which is to-day giving France the most superb roads in all the world. England struggled with roads almost impassable until the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the teaching of Macadam, Tresauguet, and Telford began to be effective, and we may say that the present road system of England is attributable to the direct aid granted by Parliament. The advocates of national aid can have no stronger testimony in support of this policy than the following statement made by Commercial Agent Loomis, of St. Etienne, in 1891: The roads of France are now practically all built, and they are substantial monuments to Napoleonic foresight and shrewdness. The work of the engineers in the department of public works in France to-day is not to build new roads, except in rare instances, but to keep those already constructed in a state of high effigiency. There have been no im- portant new roads opened in France for a dozen years, and the country is so traversed with excellent roadways that no more lines of communication are likely to be exploited save in the case of military necessity. The wagon roads of France, always passable and reaching all centers of population, no matter how small, are the chief competitors of the railways, aS means of communication by water are not numerous. The road system of France has been of far greater value to the country as a means of raising the value of lands and of putting the small peasant proprietors in easy com- munication with their markets than have the railways. It is the opinion of well- informed Frenchmen who have made a practical study of economic problems that the superb roads of France have been one of the most steady and potent contributions to the material development and marvelous financial elasticity of the country. The far-reaching and splendidly maintained road system has distinctly favored the success of the small landed proprietors, and in their prosperity and the ensuing distribution of wealth lies the key to-the secret of the wonderful financial vitality and solid prosperity of the French nation. Our national wealth for 1907 was placed at $116,000,000,000, while that of France was placed at $42,000,000,000; yet we have improved only 150,000 miles of our public roads, while France has improved 340,554 miles. 49857—7912 ; 10 Is this condition of our public roads an enviable reputation for this great country? After laying claim to superiority over all other nations along almost all other lines of development should we be content to drop to the bottom of the list in road improvement? Can we, at the peril of our commercial interests, afford it? Can we, at the sacrifice of the general well-being and comfort of the great body of our rural population, tolerate it? Some of the opponents of this proposition would lead us to believe that th macadamizing of all the 2,151,000 miles of roads in the United States would bankrupt the Government. It would be just as absurd to macadamize all the roads in the United States as it would be to build a railroad or dig a canal through every man’s farm. It is well known among highway engineers that a horse can, for a short time, exert about four times his average tractive force without injury. By reason of this fact a team of horses can draw for 2 or 3 miles aS much on a common earth road as they can draw all day on good macadam, gravel, or sand-clay roads. It should be apparent to any rational being that this 2,000,000 miles of public. road would be classified according to the traffic and the requirements in each section of country, and only the main arteries of travel would require so expensive a form of construction as broken-stone macadam. It would be entirely feasible and proper to improve many thousand miles with gravel, many more thousand miles by a mixture of sand and clay, and probably more than one-half of this great total would be adequate if maintained as first-class earth roads. So that it is absurd to figure on the cost of improving our public roads at $5,000 per mile for the entire mileage, or at $4,000, or even at $2,000. The burden of inadequate transportation facilities falls not alone upon the farmer, but upon the consumer. If it costs 25 cents per ton per mile to haul the products of the farm to the railroad station, the consumer must pay this additional cost without increasing the farmer’s profits one penny, and the farmer must pay an increased price for the finished product, which he obtains from the cities, because the same facts hold good both going and coming. Some years ago corn was burned as fuel in the Mississippi Valley, because it would not bear the cost of transportation, since the margin was insufficient. The railroads lost the freight and the markets the product. It may be argued that if the advantages to follow road improvement are so great, the States should take action and levy sufficient taxes to improve them. Some of our States have already passed road laws, providing for a road-tax levy on their taxable property. Such laws, however, are necessarily confined to the wealthier States, whose taxable property iS sufficient to raise the large sum from a small levy. All of our States are not able to levy such a tax. For instance, a tax of 1 mill, levied by the State of Pennsylvania, would raise more money than a tax of 100 mills levied by the State of Nevada. So it is not from a lack of interest in good roads, nor from a want of pro- gressiveness, that all of our States have not passed highway laws, but it is because the taxable property of most States is so small that to raise a sufficient amount of money for practical results would require an exorbitant rate of taxation. Furthermore, to undertake by State taxation to raise all the money neces- Sary to build and improve our roads will continue the burden upon those upon whom it has so long rested. The State revenues are raised by direct taxation, and the levy is upon visible property. The farmer’s property is all visible, and, therefore, never escapes taxation; while a large per cent of the property of the people of the cities is represented by stocks and bonds, is easily removable from place to place, or concealed, and is rarely ever sub- jected to taxation. The farmers have thus always been forced to bear a dispro- portionate share of the burden of taxation, which is an injustice which should. be relieved against. Mr. President, of all the civilized countries on earth, this country has the poorest roads. In all else that is progressive it stands first. In material wealth, in varied resources, in the products of agriculture, in the making of iron and steel, in the number of miles of railroad, in the wealth and opulence of its cities, we stand first, and yet the farmers, who largely contribute to this wealth and greatness, have had less done for them than any other Class of our people. Good roads are avenues of progress, the best proof of intelligence; they aid the social and religious advancement of the people; they increase the value of oe they save time, labor, and money; they are the initial sources of 9857—7912 : 11 commerce, which swell in great streams and flow everywhere, distributing the products of our fields, forests, and factories. The highways are the common property of the country ; their benefits are shared by all, and they are needed by all; they benefit all, and all should contribute to them. What fair-minded man will say that the people who live on the public roads should be required to build and keep them in repair for the use of the general public?) They could not.if they were willing. The burden is more than they could bear. No Government on earth has ever enjoyed good roads where compulsory labor is relied on to build and maintain them, The effects of good roads reach everybody. Both city and country share in their benefits. In justice and equity, therefore, everybody should contribute to the cost of their construction and maintenance, but an equal distribution of this cost can not be secured under State laws and methods of taxation. Our national revenues are raised largely from duties, paid on consumption, and are thus more equally distributed among the people. Hence, an appropriation of money from the Federal Treasury to build and improve our roads would force every consumer to bear a proportion of the cost. It is not asked that the Government bear the whole cost, but only a part of it; and this is the only method whereby we may hope to secure a national system of improved roads, with an equitable distribution of their cost among those sharing in their benefits and blessings. What are the savings to be effected by good roads? Investigations conducted by the United States Office of Public Roads and by various State commissions have established that the average cost of hauling over wagon roads in this eountry is 25 cents per ton per mile, and that the average haul is over 8 miles. The cost of hauling in Europe has, in many cases, been reduced to as low as 7 cents per ton per mile, and it has been established that good roads will reduce the cost to the farmers to as low as 10 cents per mile in this country. ‘This means a reduction by half of the annual cost of transportation to the farmers. It is only necessary to consider the fact that the immense tonnage of farm prod- ucts is hauled over the common roads to the railroad stations to realize what a tremendous saving is possible when we reduce the cost of transportation even 12% cents per ton per mile. The importance of this saving is all the more evident when we compare the cost of hauling on wagon roads with the cost of rail and water transportation. In 1906 the average freight rate by rail was a little over seven one-thousandths of a-eent per ton per mile. For the same year the mean ocean freight rate on wheat, corn, and rye from New York to Liverpool, a distance of 3,100 miles, was a little more than $1 per ton, or three ten-thousandths of a cent per ton per mile. Thus we see that railroad and water transportation rates have been continually reduced, until they have reached a marvelously low figure, while the cost of transportation over our common roads has remained practically un- changed for more than a generation, and will continue so until we can inaugu- rate some national system of improving our roads. This duty devolves upon our National Government. It has abundant surplus in the Treasury to accomplish this purpose, and how better could this surplus be used? It has money, and can afford it; while the States and the people have not the money, and can not afford it. Why allow our national revenues to lie idle in the banks when they might be stimulating our internal improvement and giving employment to thousands of the unemployed? Mr. President, the amendment I have offered does not increase the amount of the appropriation made in the post-office bill. It merely proposes to divert from the sum appropriated for the rural delivery service the small amount of $500,000, to be used as provided in the amendment. I do not undertake to lay down any rule, or prescribe any of the details by which the money may be ex- pended. It is proposed to leave that to the cooperation of the post-office and agricultural authorities. They were selected in order to have the benefit of the experiments that have been made by the good-roads divisions of the Agricultural Department and the experience and knowledge of the rural delivery division in the Post-Office Department. The methods and means of putting into operation the rural delivery service was left to the Postmaster-General, and so were the means of putting into effect and operation the irrigation system left to the Interior Department. This appropriation seeks to ascertain a practical demonstration of the effect of road improvement in the rural delivery service in cooperation with the States 49857—7912 12 and counties, and the benefits and advantages to the service by reason of the improvement. I do not believe any effort as to details in the execution of this plan could be prescribed by law. A number of States, under their constitutions, are not permitted to make appropriations for road construction and maintenance. The State of Alabama is in this situation; but the last legislature, realizing thé great importance of pub- lic roads and the inadequacy of present methods to improve and maintain them, submitted an amendment to the constitution authorizing appropriations for road construction, which will doubtless be adopted by the people at the polls in No- vember. In that event, Alabama will at once be able to contribute its share, in cooperation with the National Government, along the lines of the amendment I have submitted to the pending post-office bill, in the improvement of the roads in every county in that State. The State of Kentucky will vote this year on a similar amendment to their constitution, and perhaps there are other States where the constitution does not permit the use of public funds for internal improvement.