The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1903-12-16
GOOD 9
q ROAD S.
Rivers and Harbors and Good Roads.

~ " ROAD Improvement WHiCH
o @. Mr.. Brownlow. Of Tennes-
see' proposes to ,s'a reintroduee rod 1ss
promises to be popular measure. SO
far it has met with very little opposition.
In fact. the advocates Of the measure
are anxious to develop some active OPP
position, as this will help them to get
the subject before the people, and give
them al opportunity to show the
strength Of their case.
One 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 serl'
ousiy thinks of objecting to it. The
only questions seriously discussed
when river and harbor bill comes
up in Congress, are the amount
to be voted and for what particular
works Of Improvement the money shall
be spent. The. general policy is thor
oughly established. Congress has voted
for improvements Of this kind during
the past fifty years more than four
hundred millions of dollars, and how
an annual appropriation of twenty mil
lions would be looked upon as quite
conservative.
The advocates of National aid 10 road
Improvement claim that much more
can be said in favor Of their scheme
than in favor of river and harbor fegis-
eation, and much less against 1t. Both
come under the general class Of "inter.
nal improvements" about which there
was so much heated discussion in the
early days of the republic. The gen
eral arguments in favor Of river and
harbor improvements may be summed
up as follows: ~. They promote the
general welfare. e.. The improve
ments entail an expense too heavy tc
be borne by the people Of the localities
most directly interested, and hence,
would never be made if the Govern
ment refused to foot the bills The
same arguments apply with equal force
to the improvement Of the public high
ways. Certainly no kind of internal
Improvement would do more to pro.
mote the prosperity and the moral and
intellectual improvement of the
masses. It is also equally certain that
This great work OF internal improve
ment will remain undone, to a great
extent. if the whole burden Of expense
is left to be carried by the people OF
rural neighborhocds. A century OF eX'
perience in most of the older States
ought to be enough to demonstrate
this. In fact, no general progress is
being made except in 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:
First-Whi1e the money voted fo: 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.
great majority Of the people OF the
United States receive no direct and
but little indirect benefit from these
improvements. On the other hand.
Federal appropriation for road i'm
provement would be available for use
in any section. Every State and al
most every county and township could
share in the direct benefits, while large
indirect benefits 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 money voted, as no help Is
required from the local communities.
But the plan embodied in the Brown
low bill merely contempates that the
Government shall help the people who
are. willing to help themselves. No
community could enjoy the Govern.
ment aid until it. had voted to raise
large share of the expense by local
taxation. Thus q Federal appropria-
ton 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 "loS-roli'
Ing" INDUCED in by legislators who are
anxious to secure funds for improve
ments in their districts or States.
This often injuriously affects legisia'
hon Of all kinds. for many members
subordinate everything else to this.
National aid to road Improvement as
now advocated would be wholly Zee
from this bad feature. For the funds
would be equitably distributed accord
Ing to general plan. The Govern
ment would simply make availahic
sum of money, an equitable share ot
which could be secured by any Stale or
county complying with certain specl'
fed conditions.
When the question has been fully
presented and discussed in Congress II
is difficult to see how any member can
logically vote for river and harpof
hill and refuse to support an approDrla-
ton to aid in improving the hlghWa!S
Of the country.
Good Roads Benefit Farmers.
r. costs the farmers of the lni-eu
States nearly three times more 10 get