The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1908-09-27


increase the value of property in other
communities. I called attention to the
decisions of our supreme court upon the
principle involved here. Many of our
counties are carrying their own burdens
for good roads and should not have to
contribute to other sections of the state
in such matters.
True one paper-the Walker News-said
[ did not object to the government
building harbors, making river improve
ments for navigation, building rural
routes, etc. The man who does not Sc the
difference between appropriations by the
general government and taxation OF prop
erty by the state to build certain sections
at the expense of others-not at all bene-
fitted-puts to shame Esaus loyalty to his
idols. Suppose eastern counties OF TINS
state had been taxed to build locks in the
Warrior river. what would they say 10
the proposition? Suppose every county in
the state of Alabama had been taxed TO
cooperate with the general government
In erecting public buildings in the various
towns. would not the people thus taxed
surely rebel? There is the answer to the
whole contention.
| also stated as further proposition
that the proposed amendment was I'M
necessary. AS far as l have been able to
keep with the advocates of the amend
ment perhaps they have laid more stress
on this than and other, and with all due
respect to them l hope to demonstrate
that their claims are utterly without
merit. DO not become impatient at read
ing and considering, but be as critical as
you please.
The Age-Herald quotes Senator Over
ton as follows: The amendment will
put Alabama in the position to get feder-
al aid in the construction and mainte-
nance of post roads" Senator Bank
head and others have chimed in to the
same tenor The whole of their contention
is comprehende6 in the simple state
ment that the amendment is necessary to
procure federal aid. The argument is far
fetched and exceedingly weak that rests
upon the action of Congress in the future.
We may live to see 1t and we may not.
Ii ever made it will not be primarily for
the purpose claimed, but for an Interior
reason hereafter suggested.
But l propose to meet the contention
upon their selected ground. Our senior
senator in a speech delivered by him in
the senate on the oath of April, 1905 Of
forced an amendment to a bill then pend
ing as follows: Provided further, That
a sum not exceeding 100000 of the appro-
priation may be expended by the Post
master General in cooperation with the
Secretary of Agriculture in improving the
condition of the roads over which rural
routes are or may be hereafter estab-
lished,@ Provided further, That the
state or county or counties which may
be selected for Improvement of rural de-
livery routes therein, under the provision,
shall furnish an equal amount of money
of the rural route SO established" There
you have it, world without end! No
state cooperation necessary here. If the
state does not accept, the county or
counties may in their individual capacity
get the full benefit of any appropriations
made by the federal government in aid
of rural or postal route-and if for rural
routes, equally any other public road
would have the same right for which
federal appropriations may be made The
counties of our state are exactly in posi-
ton to get the benefit of all federal aid,
and without any amendment. AS early
as May is, last, in short article publish
ed on that date in the Ledger, without
celebrating the question, l stated that in
framing a congressional bill providing
for appropriations for public roads the
bill could be so framed as to apply to
counties, but if not so framed, the legisla-
ture could frame an act to meet any kind
of congressional appropriation Our
Senator was eminently sound and correc-
in the principles contained in his amend
ment. The right of the state to engage iii
internal improvements on its own respon-
sibilty-and it's right to disburse money
as agent or trustee of the federal gov
eminent are wholly different-the one
eminent are wholly different the one
excluded counties altogether and the fed
eeral government had appropriated 100000
to use in constructing, repairing and
maintaining good roads in the state.
provided that in the state an equal
amount be contributed to such purpose,
and so used, or to be used in the manner
prescribed, the legislature could legislate
so as to give the counties the benefit of 1t
and meet the requirements of such federal
aid-and it would be no violation of the
constitution of the state, for the simple
reason that the state would not thereby
appropriate a dollar of the state money
but simply provide that the county or
counties through which the roads were TO
pass should reap the benefit of such dona-
tions. This would be just and fair, and no
county would be taxed to raise money TO
build up rural routes through other towns
or counties which could not possibly be
of benefit to the distant counties. This
accords exactly with my proposition and
works no injustice to any. The provision
of our constitution authorizing counties
to raise money, meets every emergency.
This may be termed Throwing dust In
the eyes or "hypocritical,' but rememF
Der the great road apostle has been en-
gagged IN .tnlS Qust FalslIlS anu WeddliiS
this "hypocritical' garb in his official
capacity, judged by his own speech in
the Senate Right here would like TO
inquire of those rural mail carriers who
were so enthused over the prospect OF
having perfect roads to ride over. If they
knew that one of the strong points made
in that admirable speech that 1t would
enable the federal government to dispense
with the services of 20 percent OF the
mail carriers and all crossroads post
masters. at saving of over $6,0O0,000 to
the federal government There might
have been a little dust obscuring the
mental vision of the rural carriers at that
meeting. Those who have been saying
Alabama was a rich state, ETC., could find
something to their benefit-or disgust-in
that speech, also | want it understood.
that l thought in the main it was good
speech. and am somewhat "sot' in my
way of thinking.
Like pronunciamentos ex cathedra,
the good roads advocates have made the
following deliverance and others like
them: II want 1t distinctly understood"
say they, "the amendment prohibits, in
the elearest possible manner, any thought
of such a thing as creating a debt" Also,
1.-The language of the amendment pro-
hibits the creation of a debt"
Judge William e. Clark, formerly Of
Marengo, a man of fine intellect, of keen
perception, an experienced lawyer and
judge, used to say that occasionally he
met up with lawyer who was SO con-
fident that he knew the law that he held
himself ready all the time to make an
affidavit to 1t. We beg pardon for ask
ing the learned lawyers and statesmen,
authors of the foregoing assertions, to
relieve us from the strain put upon our