The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-07-30
crusaders in GEORGIA.


funds for road construction shall BID
accumulated. He is for bonds, first
and last, and this is how he argues:
Shall We pay as We 60, or shall we
pay part now and let the future gen.
,erations pay parts To my mind, the
whole question comes down to whether
we want good roads now, or whether
We are willing to build a few
miles now, and let another gen.
GRAFTON build a few miles more
and another and another, until
in the course of. human events we Sc
cure good roads throughout the stateI
years after every person now at the1
age of accountability is dead ano
gone. I stand for bonds. MecklenbursS
has been building roads thirty years
and she has about 200 miles, using|
direct tax. Guilford has been build
ing roads six years and she has 1901
miles, using bonds. We are too far
behind to depend on direct tax. We
must go ahead and issue bonds, build
the roads, increase our wealth and
reap many fold the cost Of the roads.
Is North Carolina to labor another
generation before good roads come to-
pass? God forbid. We would lose
enough to macadamize every mile Of
road in the state.
And especially worthy of attention
is this unanswerable argument: :. >,
As the benefit derived from perfect
ed highways cover long periods of
time, fairness and equity demand that
the rising generation should bear
portion of the cost and that the in
creased citizenship, always attracted
to the locality by system Of good
roads, should also aid in paying for
the added benefits.
Mr.. Warner also has definite convic-i
tions regarding the obligation Of the e.
federal government to bear the ex1
pense Of road-building in common
with the states, and this is a sampL]
Of how he puts the reason:
I am an earnest believer in federal
and state aid and cooperation .ir
building good roads, and believe3
that the time is at hand when the gov
ernment will hit upon some plarI
whereby it may cooperate with the
state and the state with the county,
in the work. 1t has been argued that,
it is unconstitutional. Why should it
be more so than the expenditure Of
money for river and harbor improve
ments, which often take the form Of
a private enterprise?
This reasoning is identically in line
with the recent contention of the Con-
stitution, that so long as the millions
spent upon waterways were OF lnd1t-
ferent value to the people, in the fu-
ture good roads should at least share
with rivers and harbors in calls upon
the public treasury.
We confess to little patience with
the convenient plea of "unconstitu-
tionality." It is generally the pre-
text brought forward when powerful
interests oppose great and equitable
movements, and can find no other ar
gument. And it is significant that
there are few great constructive
movements now supported by the gov
ernment against which the weapon Of
unconstitutionality was not originally
employed.
AS for the phase Of bond issues, we
can see little just or logical objection.
The coming generations are to partic-
ipate in the myriad advantages Of
system Of good highways in an infin-
itely greater degree than the genera
tion now prevailing.
It is a primary principle in common
equity that ultimate benefciaries shall
share the original expense. There is.
little reason and less justice in our.
carrying the majority Of the burdens
of our children as we'll as our own.
And, as Mr.. Warner declares. such ;
dilatory system would ':cause us to
lose enough to macadamize every road<
in the state.'' -
What applies to the thoIi
Of North Carolina, ala
the shoroughfar1