The Cooperstown courier. (Cooperstown, Griggs Co., N.D.) 1902-1913, 1903-12-17

yS0Io mOIe IMAM $4VV,VVU,VUU, ana now
an annual appropriation of $4,000, 900
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 appropriation
may be summed up as follows: ~
They promote the general welfare; (2)
the improvements entail an expense
too heavy to be borne by the people
OF the localities most directly interest
ed and, hence, would never be made II
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. It
10 also equally certain that this great
work of internal Improvement will re-
main undone, to great extent, IL 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 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:
Firs.-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 APP
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 money voted. as no help is
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 1t had voted to raise 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 kinds. for 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 a gen.
eral plan.
When the question has been fully pre-
sented and discussed in congress It is
difacult to see how any member can
and refuse to support an appropriation
to aid in improving the highways of the
country.