The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-06-25
PRESIDENT SIGNS
PORK BARREL BILL
Continued from First PaGe.)

UIk DnilntL DILL
Continued from First PaEe.l
and enlarged facilities for the import
ant commerce Of the Detroit river.
Indeed II may be said that a great ma
jority Of the projects named in the
bill are meritorious. and that money
expended In their completion will not
be wasted.
It's Defects.
THE chief defect In the bill Ii the
large number of projects appropriated
for and the uneconomical method of
carrying on these projects by the APP
preparation OF sums small In compare
son 70 the amounts required to effect
completion.
..The figures convincinsiy establish
the fact that this bill makes made
quate provision for too many projects.
The total of the bill. s62.000,000, In
not unduly large. but the policy OF
small appropriations. with great
many different enterprises, without
provision for their completion, is un-
wise. 1t tends to waste. because thus
constructed the projects are likely to
coGt moro than II they were left TO
contractors, who were authorized to
complete the whole work within
reasonably short time. The appro-
priation of a small sum lessons the
sense OF responsibility of those who
are to adopt the project, and do not
therefore give to their decision the
care that they would give II the APP
preparation or contract involved the
full amount needed for completion.
Moreover, the appropriation of a COM
paratively small amount for a doubt
full enterprise LIS thereafter used by
its advocates to force further provision
for it from Congress on the ground
that the investment made Is q con-
elusive recognition Of the wisdom OF
the project. and its continuance be-
comes q necessity to save the money
already spent. This has been called
a piecemear policy. II Is proposed to
remedy this defect by an annual rtv-
ers and harbors bill, but that hardly
avoids the objections above cited for
such yearly appropriations are apt to
be affected by the state OF the treas
ury and political exigeney."
Fix Time Limit.
III enterprises are to be useful as
encouraging means OF transportation.
they ought to be finished within
reasonable time. The delays In COM
plotting them postpone their useful
ness and increase their cost. The
proper policy. II seems to me, IL TO
determine from the many projects
proposed and recommended what are
the most important, and then to pro-
coed to complete them with due ais
patch; and then to take up others ana
do the same thing with them.
There has been frequent discussion
of late years as to the proper course
to be pursued in the development OF
GU finland waterways. and ] think
the general sentiment has been that
we should have a comprehensive sys-
tenn agreed upon by some competent
body OF experts who should pass upon
the relative merits of the various pro-
iects and recommend the order In
which they should be begun and COM
pleted.
under the present system every
project 10 submitted to army engineers
who pass upon the question whether
IT ought to be adopted; but they have
no power to pass upon the relative
importance Of the many different pro-
jects they approve, or to suggest the
most economical and business-like or
der for their completion
Never Recommended.
General Marshall, while chief en-
gineer, at my request furnished me
memorandum in respect to the piii
then pending in the Senate. in which
ne tnaiyzed the criticisms made In
the discussion of ~ in Congress. he
considers the bin TO be auate as good
as any of its predecessors. but points
out the defects have mentioned
above, and also suggests that the. OLD
projects provided for In the Oil II
ciude some which were never ISe-
commended by the engineers and some
which, though once recommended,
would not be now recommended be-
cause of change of condition. -
Congress should refer the old pro-
jects 10 boards OF army engineers Tor
further consideration and recommen-
dation. This would enable us to
know what Of the old works ought 70
be abandoned. General MarshAiIs
plain intimation Ia that number OF
old projects call for action OF MS
kind
II have given to the consideration
of this bill the fun ten days since
It's submission to me, and some time
before that. The objections are TO
the system, for IL may be concedso
that the trainers Of the bill have made
as good a bill as they could under
the 'piecemeaf policy. . once reacn-
ed the conclusion that II WAS my
duty to interpose veto IN oraeI1
method of framing these bills Sub
sequent consideration has altered my
view as to my duty.
Urgeut Need.
ut is now three years since river
and harcbr bill was passed. The pro-
jects under way are In urgent need
OF further appropriations for matnte.
nance and continuance, and there 10
great and Justified pressure for many
OF the new projects provided for by
the bill. II has been made clear to
me that the failure of the bill thus
late in the session woul dsertousiy
embarrass the constructing engineers.
dwo not think. therefore, the defects
of the bill which ! have potned out
will justify the postponement OF AL
This important work. But do think
tina tin the preparation Of the pro-
posed future yearly bills ongress
ahouid adopt the reforms above sug-
Eested. and that failure to DO 80
would Justify Withholding executive
approval. even though rivers ana
harbors bill fail"