The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1905-11-24
Misrepresentation Regarding Mary,
lands Road Law.

bdHu HOdu LdWs
In an interview with Mr.. W. W,
Crosby, Chief Engineer of the Maryland
Geological Survey Commission, Mr.
Crosby says:
Several articles have appeared re-
Gently in various papers il Caroline
County, which were devoted to various
comments and criticisms of the State
Aid Road Law, popularity known as the
Shoemaker Law" While these ar
ticles were evidently inspired for polit
ical purposes during the closing part OF
the last campaign, they contained SO
many. misstatements and misrepresen-
tations of what are the actual facts, that
all who are interested in our States
progress toward a better road system
should become acquainted with the true
state of affairs.
The first erroneous statement is that
the Act prescribes that the roads improv-
ed shall invariably be surfaced With
crushed stone" or in other words that
they shall be macadamized. The Mary
land Geological Survey Commission has
not prescribed that the roads improved
under the Shoemaker Act shall 'invar-
iably be surfaced with crushed stone.
| 1t has offered to assist St. Mary's county
in building gravel roads, and is assisting
Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot counties
to build shell roads. The law under
which it is operating provides that the
plans of the Commission shall call for
the improvement of the road petitioned
for "by stone, gravel, or other good ma
terial in such manner that the same
will be, with reasonable repairs thereto,
at all seasons of the year, firm, smooth,
aud convenient for travel" The past
action of the Commission shows that it is
willing to use shells. and probably it
would use mari where the saving in use
over stone would be justified by local
conditions. 1t is true that the plans and
specifications have generally, when first
submitted in response to the petitions,
called for the use of stone. This has
been done because the difference in cost
between the use of stone and oyster shells,
for instance, was relatively small when
considered in connection with the much
longer life of the stone road. Then, too,
the law providing that the subsequent
repair of these roads shall be borne en-
tirely by the counties, the Commission
deemed it advisable, and more econom-
ical for the county. to spend the larger
amount for the stone road, in view of the
fact that half of the difference between
the shell or gravel and stone road was
borne by the State.
Both ignorance and malice are shown
in the second statement of the aforesaid
articles which say that it is proposed to
use material from the western counties,
thus making it seem that the law favors
the western counties by securing mar
ket for their product on the Eastern
Shore. No use of Western Maryland
stone on the Eastern Shore has been con-
sidered, except in one case. Some in
quiries were made in order to see whether
or not, by shipping Western Maryland
limestone across the bay, the cost of good
road material to Eastern Shore counties
could be reduced. 1t was found. how
ever, that the price demanded for scow-
ing the material across the bay was pro-
hibitive, and the plans and estimates
furnished Eastern Shore counties for
stone roads, have been based on the use
of stone from near Wilmington. Della.
ware, as being the cheapest available.
A third erroneous statement is to the
effect that the State Aid Commission has
refused to permit Caroline county to take
advantage of its natural resources.
Whether this statement is made through
ignorance or malice is immaterial. 1t is
absolutely false. The Maryland Highway
Division has not, in a single instance,
been requested to plan or estimate on
gravel road, or one where any other ma
terial was contemplated other than oyster
shells or stone. The Highway Division
has agreed to assist and is assisting in the
construction of shell roads in the county.
Had it been asked to consider gravel
roads it would undoubtedly have been
glad to do so.
Now turning for moment to the fig
ures as given in the articles in question.
They state that Caroline county sent in
sixteen hundred dollars ($I6oo) to the
State. There is slight error here, as
the tabulated figures of the possible con-
tributions las matter of fact the money
is not obtained by direct tax and would
doubtless be expended in other ways if
not used for roads) credit Caroline county
with fifteen hundred and five dollars
($I5o5) If the entire $500. 900 appropriated
by the State is called for With this pos.
sible contribution Of SIsos, Caroiiue is