The Tupelo journal., 1903-12-25
AID PLAN.
Federal Government Quite as Deeply
Interested In Good Roads AS In
Rivers and Harb0rs.

The bill for national aid to road i'm
provement which Mr.. Brownlow, of
Tennessee, proposes to reintroduce in
congress this winter promises to be a
popular measure. So tar 1t has met with
very little opposition. In fact the adj
vocates OF the measure are anxious to
develop some active opposition, as this
will help them to get the subject before
the people and give them an opportunity
to show the strength of their case.
n Of the strongest arguments in
favor of the Measure is that based on
the river and harbor appropriations.
Legislation of this kind rests on a half
century OF precedents, and no one seri-
ously thinks of Directing to it. The
only questions seriously discussed when
a river and harbor bill comes up in con-
gress are the amount to be voted and
for what particular works of improve
ment the money shall be spent. The
general policy is thoroughly estab-
lished. Congress has voted for improve
ments of this kind during the past so
years more than $500. 00O, 900. and now
an annual appropriation of 500, 900, 600
would be looked upon as quite conserva-
tive.
The advocates of national aid to road
Improvement claim that much more can
be said in favor of their scheme than in
favor OF river and harbor legislation and
much less against it. Both come under
the general class of internal improve
ments" about which there was so much
heated discussion in the early days Of
the republic. The general arguments in
favor of river and harbor appropriations
may be summed up as follows: %
Ihey promote the general welfare; GU
the improvements entail an expense
too heavy to be borne by the people
OF he localities most directly interest
ed and, hence. would never be made if
the government refused to foot the bills.
The same arguments apply with equal
force to the improvement of the public
highways. Certainly no kind of internal
Improvement would do more to promote
the prosperity and the moral and intel
lectual improvement of the masses. 1t
is also equally certain that this great
work of internal improvement will re-
main undone, to a great extent, if the
whole burden of the expense is left to
be carried by the people of rural neigh
borhoods. A century of experience in
most of the older states ought to be
enough to demonstrate this. In fact no
general progress toward good roads is
being made except in a few states which
have adopted the state aid plan.
The policy of voting federal aid to
road improvement has three great ad-
vantages over that of voting funds for
river and harbor improvements as fol-
lows:
gFfrst-While the money voted for the
latter purpose is collected from the
whole people by taxation, it is neces-
sarily expended in limited localities, the
inhabitants of which receive the greater
part of the benefits. In fact. a great
majority of the people of the United
States receive no direct, and but little
indirect, benefit from these improve
ments. On the other hand, a federal ap-
preparation for road improvement
would be available for use in any sec
ton. Every state and almost every
county and township could share in the
direct benefits, while large indirect ben-
efits would come to the people of all
cities and towns.
Second-The benefits flowing from an
appropriation for river and harbor i'm
provement are strictly limited to the
| amount of IONA untaI n e ~ Lol, g,
required from the local communities.
But the plan embodied in the Brownlow
bill merely contemplates that the gov
eminent shall help the people who are
willing to help themselves. No COM
munity could enjoy the government aid
until it had voted to raise a large share
of the expense by local taxation. Thus
a federal appropriation for this purpose
would produce benefits far beyond the
limits of the amount voted.
Third-One bad feature of the river
and harbor legislation is the "log-roll-
ing INDUCED in by legislators who are
anxious to secure funds for improve
ments in their districts or states. This
often injuriously affects legislation of
all xmas, Tor many members SubOrdi-
nate everything else to this. National
aid to road improvement as now advo-
Gated would be wholly free from this
bad feature, for the funds would be
equitably distributed according to gen.
eral plan. The government would sim
ply make available a sum of money. an
equitable share of which could be Sc
cured by any state or county complying
with certain specified conditions.
When the question has been fully pre-
scented and discussed in congress it is
difficult to see how any member can
logically vote for a river and harbor bill
and refuse to support an appropriation
to aid in improving the highways of the
country.
SWINGING MAIL BOX.