Milford chronicle., 1925-11-27
FEDERAL AID ON ROADS
INVESTMENT NOT GRATUITY
SAY HIGHWAY OFFICIALS
Statement Issued Concerning Meth
DDS OF AppOrtiOniDg Federal
Share In Interstate Highways.

That Federal Aid in highway Work
ratuitv to states, but a sound IN
aetment. is a matter to which pup
attention is invited by the Amer
n Association of State Highway
fcials in a statement recently Is
led bearing upon the method ol
nnortioning funds authorized by
Toneress for road conStrucllOu'
he statemen. points out that WIN
approximately eight billion dollirS
already invested in automoolIe We
khicles and only about one billion
Near going into highways, sixty per
(cent of which is applied to local
troads, there is ample room for me
profitable investment of pubic
funds in modern highways as the
only practical way 20 offset Nehlcle
operating waste.
So far as the taxpayer is con-
cerned in any suggested curtall-
ment in road building, it Is simply
a question whether he prefers to
save at the spigOt rather than ID
stop vase at the bung hole. 10
slacken in road building and not
slacken in road use-a thing which
is impossible-would prove one of
the most costly experiments at
saving ever attempted in this coun-
try.
Concerning the apportionment oil
Federal funds in joint cooperation
with states in their efforts to build
roads that save instead of roads
that waste, the official statement
says: Much time was given to the
study of the most equitable method
for distribution of the Federal funds
Post road mileage was Immediately
admitted as one factor, for the Fed
eral government was every day US
ing hundreds of thousands of miles
of highway for the distribution of
mail
Population was agreed upon as
one which naturally carried with it
also the relationship to wealth, for
they coincide to a great degree. |
Area was chosen because it carried |
with it the problem of the growth
of the states in their development !
and the further facts that the Fed
eral government owns much area |
in states which cannot add to pOpu- |
lation or road miles on that account |
Taxable property was eliminated |
as an element for consideration be- |
cause there is no equaliZed method |
of assessment of property for tax
able purposes. Some states assess |
on One-third value, some on onee |
half value and some try to assess |
on full value. The Federal gov
ernment having no power over |
these varying methods could not
righteOusly use taxable property
as one of the elements in selecting
plan for distribution of Federal
funds.
Wealth of states was recognized
since population gives virtually the
same element. Wealth alone could
not be considered, for then the real
purpose of Federal government ap-
preparations to equalize the funds
between states would be frustrated.
The problem between states is the
same as that between countries.
In every state in the Union the
wealthy countries contribute more
to certain state enterprises than
they seemingly get in return and in
every state in the Union there are
poor countries that contribute less
than they seem to receive. This
same relationship obtains in nation
al affairs between New York and
Nevada.
But the government did not stop
with an appropriation. November
=, 1921 will stand out as one of the
great days in Congressional action
On the entire highway program. In
addition to making appropriation to
be expended in cooperation with the
the states, the law approved on
his day provided for a definite sys-
lem of roads to be constructed with
funds from both the Federal and
State treasures. This SYSTEM was
limited to seven per cent of each
states total road mileage. Seven
DER cent was chosen because it was
ound that this mileage would con- ,
lect all the county seats and main
market centers. Provision was =
made to extend the first seven per
,ent as it was completed, realizing 4;
hat some states had already i'm =
'roVed a considerable road mileage
nd would therefore be entitled to 3
n early extension of the system. \
his system is approximately 20O,-
100 miles and is today a little less q,
han one half improved >.