The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1905-10-25

4 = i cism. In fact it is exactly
WOW what they desire. as this
will aid in getting the matter before
the people in discussion that will de-
velop the strength of the question. One
of the strongest arguments in favor OF
National aid to good roads is that based
on the river and harbor appropriations.
The only questions seriously discussed
when q river and harbor bill comes up
in Congress are the amount TO be voted
and for what particular Improvement
the money is to be spent, the general
policy already being thoroughly estab-
lished. Congress has in the past fifty
wears voted more than $40O,OO0,O 600 for
this purpose, and now'an annual appro-
priation of $25,O00,000 is looked upon
as quite conservative. The advocates
of National aid to road improvement
claim that much more can be said IN
favor of their proposition than in favor
of river and harbor legislation. and
much less against it. Certainly no
kind of improvement would do more
to promote the prosperity and the
moral and intellectual upbuilding OF
the masses. It is also equally certain
that this great work of internal i'm
provements will remain undone, to
great extent, if the whole burden OF
expense is left to be carried by the peo-
ple of rural neighborhoods
' 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-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 i'm
provements. On the other hand,
Federal appropriation for road i'm
proyement would be available for use
in any section. Every State and coun-
ty 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 rivers and harDors
are strictly limited to the amount or
money voted, as no help is required
from the local communities. But the
Brownlow-Latimer plan merely con-
Templates that the Government shall
help the people who are willing to help
themselves. No community could have
any part of the Government aid until
il had raised a share Of the funds equal
to it's quota of the Government fund.
Thus a Federal appropriation for this
purpose would produce benefits far
beyond the limits Of the amount voted.
Third-National aid to road improve
ment would be free from the"log-roll-
ing" features of river and harbor legis-
lation which so often injuriously af-
fects other important matters in Con-
gress. This is true because the fund
would be equitably distributed accord
ing to a general plan. The Govern
ment would simply make available
sum of money an equitable share OF
which could be secured by any State
or county complying with certain speci-
fed conditions. 1t is difficult to see
how any member of Congress can logi-
cally vote for a river and harbor bill
and refuse to support an appropriation
to aid in improving the highways OF
the country.