The copper era., 1905-09-28
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
 OF CLIFTON.
Rivers and fIarbOrs and Good Roads.

Latimef Good Roads bills are not
 afraid of criticism. In fact, it is
 exactly what they desire, as this will
 aid in getting the matter before the
 people in discussion that will develop
 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 appro-
 priations. The only questions se-
 riously discussed when river and
 the amount to be voted and for what
 particular improvement the money
 is to be spent, the general policy be-
 ing already thoroughly established.
 Congress has in the past fifty years
 voted more than S4OO, 100000 for this
 purpose, and now an annual appro-
 priation of S25, 5,OO0,O 900 is looked upon
 as quite conservative. The advo-
 provement claim that much more can be said in favor of their propo- sition than in favor of river and
 harbor legislation, and much less
 general class of "internal improve
 ments." The general arguments in
 favor of river and harbor improve
 ments may be summed up as follows:
 CD They promote the general well
 fare. @ The Improvements entail
 an expense too heavy to be borne by
 the people of the localities most di-
 rectly interested, and hence would fused to foot the bills. The same ar guments apply with equal force to the improvement of the public high ways Certainly no kind of improve prosperity and the moral and intel lectual upbuilding of the masses. It is also equally certain that this great work of internal improvements will remain undone, to a great extent, if the whole burden of expense is left to be carried by the people of rural More than q hun- dred years of experience in most of the older States sufficiently demon strates this fact. In truth, no gen. eral progress is being made except in four or five wealthier States which | the State aid plan.
 The policy of voting Federal aid to road improvement has three great | over that of voting funds | of river and harbor Improvements, | as follows:
 First-While the money voted for the latter purposes is collected from the whole people by taxation, it is necessarily expended in limited To- calities, the inhabitants of which re- ceive the greater part of the bene- fits. In fact, a great majority of the people of the United States re- ceive no direct and but little indi- rect benefit from these improve ments. On the other hand, Fed | eral appropriation for road improve 1 ment would be available for use in | any section. Every State and county | 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 l an appropriation for rivers and har- bors are strictly limited, to the amount of money voted, as no help is
 ha But the Brownlow-Latimer plan merely contemplates that the Gov shall help the people who are willing to help themselves. No could have any part of the Government aid until it had | raised a share of the funds equal to it's quota of the Government fund. l Thus a Federal appropriation for this purpose would produce benefits far beyond the limits of the amount voted.
 Third-National aid to road inn provement would be free from the | features of river and l harbor legislation which so often in- juriously affects other important matters in Congress. This is true because the fund would be equitably ! according to general plan. The Government would sim ply make available a sum of money | an equitable share of which could be | secured by any State county comply i ing with certain specified conditions. | It is difficult to see how any member | of Congress can logically vote for a river and harbor bill and refuse to | support an appropriation to aid in improving the highways of the 
 Write to Hon. w. P. BrOwnlow, at for copy of his Good Roads bill, and to your U. s. Senator for Senator Document No. 2O4, Sec ,,,d Caccion E:ftv- Ri oht h CIOnOreSS. l