The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-11-29
Conn. Highway Department.

Conn. Highway Department.
 That there is something seriously
 wrong in the department of the high
 way comm ssioner of the State of Con-
 necticut is affirmed by many of the
 selectmen of the towns shat have
 helped to build the so-called ''State
 roads" and by practically all users
 of our highways
 Many of the contractors who have
 taken road contracts complain of in-
 justice in the department. not so
 much on the ground that the rulings
 of the commissioner are unjust as on
 the ground that they can get no rul-
 ing at all. and are forced to wait for
 weeks and months before they can
 have their work passed upon.
 If anything is wrong. what is it?
 Is it the incumbent of the office or
 the system?
 The examination of the subject
 which have made leads me to be-
 lieve that while the present commfs- sioner is not infallible, while his
 knowledge of road building is far
 from the knowledge which should be
 had by man in his position, yet he
 has given the State as good roads as he could under the present system. The system itself, built up as an expedient for aiding party political machine, has assigned efficient road
 building to a secondary place. The present highway commissioner was one of the chief engineers in the con- not escape that responsibility, but having built it he is at it's mercy, and his tenure of office is dependent on his political behavior, not on his road making efficiency.
 Why should not Connecticut have just as good highway department as they have in Massachusetts? Every one who uses the highways of both States knows we have not. Why can- not we have a highway department sufficiently competent or honest to re- ject highways that are not built in accordance with the specifications of the contracts?
 Why should we not have 8 highway department that will give us a dol lars worth of highway for each dol lar spent, that will give us highways that will not crumble to pieces week after they are thrown open to travel, a highway department that will be first. last and always for the build ing of good roads. and will not oc- cupy it's time and spend it's money for the purpose of building itself up as a political machine? There is no req son why we should not.
 We will consider some Of the criti- cisms that have been made of our highway department and the results obtained by it. They are as follows: Ffrst-That our State highways cost, age and traffic considered, are inferior to those of adjacent States. Second-That our new highways go to pieces, unravel and become a bed of loose stones almost as soon as they are opened to travel, instead of re- maining solid and wearing out as they do in other States.
 Third-That oiling roads, as they have been oiled for the last two years is a waste of money, and a menace them in automobiles, to say nothing of the injury to clothes and cars and | carriages from the splashing of the | oil.
 Fourth-That the present system oi ! highway inspectors is a farce, they | being selected in almost every case | for political reasons, not because they | know anything about roads.
 Fifth-That the annual report of the | department is a tangled, unintelligent | affair, emitting details, and indicating | confusion in the department, rather | than any system.
 Sixth-That the highway. commits. | sioner under the present law, has un- restricted control of some five millions l of dollars, which he can place here | there Or anywhere that the political l exigencies of his department or of his party demand. shutting out entirely | those towns that have the temer;ty | to oppose him or his party in any way: that he has some eighty thou | hand around, and that such unlimited | to any one man in the State, or ir ! any other State and iS ahyoITtn1v or.