The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1903-12-18

The bill for national aid 10 road in
proyenent which Mr.. Hroxrlox. cs
Iernessee. proposes 10 resntroc1ce -
congress this ginier pronis-s 10 - .
popular measure 80 lar i las met wlih
very little opposition In fac, the ac-
socztes q the measure are ANXIOUS 10
develop some active opposirion. as this
xill help them Ia Get the slosect before
the people and give them Al opportunity
~ shos the strength Of their case
One ~ the strongest Arguments n
favor CT the measure Is that based On
the river and h4rbor apprOprlz ATOMS
Legislation Of this kind rests O. half
century Of presidents. and no one s<Ei-
oasiy thinks Of obsecting 10 IL Tie
only questions seriously discussed ~hen
river and harbor bill comes up i coz
gress are the amount TO - voted and
for what particular works 81 improve
nent the money shall lie spent Tie
general policy Is thoroughly es-2b-
lishec- Congress has voted for improve
ments Of this kind curinS the past 80
years more than 500 Go .psss. and n0w
al annual appropriation o. s-sad'et 90
would lie looked upon Is quite cOnzerVz-
tive
The advocates Of national aid TO road
improvement claim that much more q,
be said il favor Of their scheme than II
favor OF river and hzrbor legislation and
much less against IL Both cone under
the general class OF internal improve
ments" about which there xzs 50 much
heated discussion IN the early days q
the republic The general arguments Z
favor Of river and hzrDc- appropriations
may be summed up zs follows Cd
They promote the general welfare. ~
tie Improvements entail an exp@-se
too heavy 10 be borne BY tie people
81 the localities most directly interest
ed and. hence. would never - made z
the government refused 10 foot The bills
The same arguments apply with equal
force 70 the improvement q the public
highways Certainly 10 kind Of internal
improvement would co more 10 promote
the prosperity and the moral and INTEL
lectual improvement u the masses II
is also equally certain that this great
work OF internal improvement all ~
main undone. 10 q great extent Il The
whole burden Of the expense j. Eft 10
be carried BY the people q rural neigh
borhcocs- A century q experience IN
most. II The older states ought 10 y
enough 10 demonstrate this IL fad 10
general progress toward good TuaLx is
being made except in a few s-Ares Eh.cA
have adopted TIE state aid Plan
The policy q voting federal aid 70
road Improvement has three great zc-
EautaSes over that n voting funds FOR
river and k1rt0r Improvements q fol-
lows.
First-While the money voted for the
latter purpose is collected from the
whole people BY taxation il j. recss-
sarily expended IN limited localities the
inhabitants Of which receive he greater
part ~ the benefits II fact. a great
majority Of the people of the UrireG
States receive no direct and bur little
indirect. benefit from these improve
merts o. the other hand. = federal a.
preparation for road Improvement
would he available for use IN any Sc
ton Every state and almost erery
county and township could share in the
direct benefits. While large indirect ben
sfts would come 70 the people Of al
-ifies and towns
Second-The benefits f0x irg frrrn an
appropriation for river and hzrb0r i'm
provement are strictly limited to the
amount Of money voted rs 10 help is
required from the local communities
But the plan embodied in The Br0EnloE
bill merely conter pilates that the gcz-
eminent shall help the people Who are
willing 10 help themselves No con-
n-nify could enjoy the government aid
until II had voted TO raise large share
Of the expense by local taxation Thus
a federal appropriation for his purpose
would produce benefits far beyond the
limits Cf the amount voted
Third-Ore bad feature ri the river
and harbor legislation is the -loz--usl-
ing ir1ulgec ir ~ legislators Who are
anxious TO secure funds fo- improve
merfs in their districts or states This
often ir5urio1ssv Affects legislation ~
al kinds for many members s-hurei-
nate everything else to this National
aid 10 road improvement zs ROW z1ro-
Gated would Re Wholly free from this
had feature. for the funds would =
equifahly distributed according 70 = gen.
eral plan
When the question has been fully pre-
seried and discussed in congress il T.
difficult 70 see how any member can
logically vote for river and hzrl,1r 5ITi
and refuse 10 suPpo-- az appropriation
10 aid in improving The highways a. re
ror-rs-v