Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-08-31
COMMISSIONER NELSON'S ARGU-
MENT


Highway Commission, Mr.. Lyman II.
Nelson of Portland, contributes to
the Portland Press an argument
favoring the proposed amendment to
divert the highway bond money from
the purposes for which the people
voted it by big majority in 1919.
Believing its readers will be inter-
ested in this exposition of the new
members views of the question the
Journal prints it in another column
Undoubtedly our readers will find
it very plausible presentation Of
the argument in favor of the amend
ment, but in forming conclusions. if
one wishes to avoid a misconception
of the matter consideration should
also be given to certain features
which MIR. Nelson but lightly touches
and TO other facts bearing on the
question, facts which he appears to
have overlooked. OF the latter, men,
toned by way of illustration, is his
former position, if we understand it
correctly, that the State has been
spending too much money per mile,
that we cannot afford it: that in
stead of building permanent founda-
tions, grading and filling, we must
put in shape the roads throughout the
country districts by surfacing. with
gravel and so get more passable roads
all over the State. Give us more
gravel roads was the cry, which, if
we are not misinformed. Mr. Nelson
hae frequently uttered. True, we
have not heard so much about that
since publicity was given to the fact
that around IS per cent of our State
highway roads have a gravel surface.
but with properly graded drained and
solid foundations.
Is it that class of roads, which
represents such large part of our
build on the back thoroughfares
running through sparsely settled dis
tricts? If there is lack of money
would Mr.. Nelson build on a sec
ondary thoroughfare a road of such
permanency as to warrant the use of
bond money, and refuse to build the
same amount and kind Of a road on
a trunk line where the demand is
much greater? If so, why? To please
the fellows living on the back road ?
And would he build this back road
to connect with trunk line before
the trunk line was ready to receive
the traffic? II so of what ad-
vantage would it be 10 the back
roader in getting his goods to mar
ket?
If he would provide for graveling
the surface of those roads and patrol
ling them, keeping them in shape
with split log drags, doing what
should be done ali over the State, and
which the State cannot afford. to
leave undone, no permanent work will
have been accomplished, no work
done for which the next generation
should be asked to pay. All tina,
would be in the interests of the
Al,
be repaired roads, roads to be an
nually repaired and cared for and al
much an obligation on the people Of
today as are our poll taxes Surel,
he would not divert the bond none,
for any such a purpose, yet isn't all
that possible IL that amendment
passes?
1t will be recalled that when M
State was asked to make this bono
issue 1t had before 1t for considera
ton definite plan showing tn,
roads to bc built, affording a com
prehensive idea of just what TIT
money was to be used for. the roads
to which it was to be applied. Their
was no uncertainty about that Their,
were no contingencies hidden in tina
proposition, no inducement for tn
legislator coming to the Legislature
to ask for a part of that money t.
take home to his constituents a
bacon" or pork" Does Mr.. Mel
sons plan. II such 1t may be called
afford any such protection? We fai
to find it. IL it does.
And when one thinks about it care
fully he cannot avoid the conclusion
that this Is mighty important fea
ture.' The State cannot afford to ge
the reputation of asking the COMING
generation to pay for the mainte
nance of its highways. 1t has com
prehensive system established. Elk
cellent work has been accomplished
under that system and is well on thu
way to completion. Whatever mis-
takes have been nade-what they arr