The Washington times., 1921-06-18


tion Of how best to achieve compro
hensive results In this feid. especially
within the last decade or more. Ano
what has been already accomplished
under this head makes the opposition
OF the farmers TO the main idea OF
the pending legisiaticn seem yer,
like an attempt to block the wheels
OF progress.
, What they have In mind gets down
to this, that they woulo rather have
the Federal money expended for local
roads, suitable for traffic within their
several counties. where the farms are
located from which they need TO haul
their products TO the nearest town
center or railroad station. than TO
have II paid ont in providing trunk
highways The latter would oner.
connect tions between any local dis
trict and the large cities or points
of water or ran shipment; but they
would Inevitably leave numerous
county towns and railroad stations
on one side The farmers would
rather see good roads running from
their own farms TO the nearest VIII
lage than be within four or nve miles
OF a trunk highway giving direct
access TO many great cities. Theirs.
IN "A WOfu, Is Int PrtoShf"i W
road building. That view has been
a stumbling block TO any really ma
tional system OF good roads. ever
since the good roads movement en-
tered its modern phase. First the
towns, then the counties, then the
States, having in turn had the con-
troll of road building in their lands,
ob bjected to passing that control to
the next higher unit Yet as the prob
lem broadened. the larger unit inevtt-
ably assumed charge. Now II Is the
turn OF the Federal Government to
exert a more comprehensive and more
definite influence The best opinion
as to how the work should be divided
seems to have been expressed very
well by the highways platform OF the
National Automobile Chamber of
Commerce.
This plan gives TO each unit of
government the development of the
trafic routes which naturally fall
within its Jurisdiction. At the same
time there is provided method for
linking up the smaller parts with the
larger, in such fashion that all will
be co-ordinated into an effective sys-
tenn. There will be no waste construc-
ton, such as One may fnd, even now,
built solely for county purposes and
in Difference only TO local views.
There is no great point In the far
mer's contention that the adminis-
tration of the Federal road fund
should continue in the hands of the
Department of Agriculture. That De-
partment, to be sure, now works,
through it's Bureau of Public Roads.
cooperating with the States in study
ing road management and construc-
tion, finding road material. building
experimental roads or investigating
traffic effects. Yet there is no pecu-
liar fitness in having this work done
by the Government agricultural
agencies
Besides, II is worth remembering
that the modern method of dealing
with highway development would
seem to make a Federal highway COM
mission the natural complement of
the various State commissions that
now specialize on that kind Of de-
velopment All that the State COM
missions have, learned as to real
needs and best methods would nat
urally come to a head, and be made
everywhere available, in the activi-
ties OF the Federal body. Its estab-
nOl fntdu tuat INC
farmers would lose their chance Of
obtaining the farm-to-market roads
which they so earnestly covet. It
would mean. rather. that Federal ac-
tivity would provide broad frame
work of trunk highways, gradually
extending to all parts of the country
and connecting with corresponding
systems over the borders. The con-
Meeting State systems would then be
handled uniformly by the State COM
missions, and the local roads giving
access directly to individual farms
would be left, as they should be. to
the county and towns directly con-
cerned in them. This plan has been
arrived at after years of study and
practical experience. II represents
the best thought on tho subject II
offers the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of road users. There
iq m trufpo ,s ,rn