1.4.”
ILLUSTRATED ARGUMENTS
FOR AND AGAINST
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
VERSUS
FEDERAL AID
A BILL
for Congress to Create a
National Highways Commission
(Fourth Edition)
By CHARLES HENRY DAVIS, C. E.
Washington, D.C., February Twentieth, Nineteen Fourteen
Transportation
library
\ E
2_3
.D 2 H.
| | | ||
Copyright, February 20, 1914, by the
NATIONAL HIGHways Association
Washington, D. C.
INCORPORATED A.D. NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TWELVE IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A membership corporation which exists to favor, foster, and further the development of
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS and GOOD ROADS EVERYWHERE in the length and breadth of
these United States of America, and to secure the benefits — social, moral, commercial, indus-
trial, material, educational, and personal-in the progress and uplift of the American people
which follow in the train of easy intercommunication and transit between the great centers of
population and distribution and the great rural productive areas of the Nation, and will “bind
the States together in a common brotherhood, and thus perpetuate and preserve the Union.”
AMALGAMATED ORGANIZATIONS
Realizing that vastly more effective work in the cause of Good Roads Everywhere can be
accomplished by the coöperation of all Good Roads organizations, and realizing further that real
cooperation can be secured only through amalgamation, the following 'Associations have amal-
gamated with and become divisions of the National Highways Association: —
NATIONAL OLD TRAILS ROAD ASSO-
CIATION
Now NATIONAL OLD TRAILS ROAD
DEPARTMENT
INTER-MOUNTAIN GOOD ROADS ASSO-
CIATION
Now INTER-MOUNTAIN DEPART-
MENT
CANADA, KANSAS CITY, AND GULF
ROAD ASSOCIATION
Now CANADA, KANSAS CITY, AND
GULF ROAD DEPARTMENT
OHIO GOOD ROADS FEDERATION
Now OHIO DIVISION
NORTH CAROLINA GOOD ROADS ASSO-
CIATION
Now NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
GREAT WHITE WAY ASSOCIATION OF
IOWA
Now GREAT WHITE WAY DIVISION
PENNSYLVANIA GOOD Roads ASSO-
CIATION
Now PENNSYLVANIA DIVISION
WEST VIRGINIA GOOD ROADS ASSO-
CIATION
Now west virginia Division
TEXAS GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION
NoW TEXAS DIVISION
ARIZONA GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION
Now ARIZONA DIVISION
NEW MEXICO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIA-
TION
Now NEW MEXICOIDIVISION

[3]
COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
Pursuant to the By-Laws of the National Highways Association, the Trustees have
appointed for life a Council of Governors.
Appointments thereto have been accepted
by the Governors and ex-Governors of the following States: —
EMMET O’NEAL, Governor State of Alabama
GEORGE WILLIE PAUL HUNT, Governor
State of Arizona
GEORGE WASHINGTON HAYS, Governor
State of Arkansas -
JUNIUS MARION FUTRELL, Acting Governor
State of Arkansas
HIRAM WARREN JOHNSON, Governor State
of California
ELIAS MILTON AM MONS, Governor State of
Colorado -
CHARLES ROBERT MILLER, Governor State
of Delaware
PARK TRAMMELL, Governor State of Florida.
JOHN MARSHALL SLATON, Governor State
of Georgia
Joseph MACKEY BROWN, Ex-Governor
State of Georgia
John MICHENER HAINES, Governor State
of Idaho
JAMES HENRY HAWLEY, Ex-Governor State
of Idaho .
SAMUEL MOFFETT RALSTON, Governor
State of Indiana
GEORGE WASHINGTON CLARKE, Governor
State of Iowa
GEORGE HARTSHORN HODGES, Governor
State of Kansas
JAMES BENNETT McCREARY, Governor
Commonwealth of Kentucky
LUTHER EGBERT HALL, Governor State of
Louisiana -
JARED YOUNG SANDERS, Ex-Governor State
of Louisiana
WILLIAM TECUMSEH HAINES, Governor
State of Maine
PHILLIPS LEE GOLDSBOROUGH, Governor
State of Maryland
DAVID IGNATIUS WALSH, Governor Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts
EUGENE NOBLE FOSS, Ex-Governor Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts
WOODBRIDGE NATHAN FERRIS, Governor
State of Michigan
ADOLPH, OLSON EBERHART, Governor State
of Minnesota
EARL BREWER, Governor State of Mississippi
ELLIOTT WOOLFOLK MAJOR, Governor
State of Missouri
HERBERT SPENCER HADLEY, Ex-Governor
State of Missouri
SAMUEL VERNON STEWART, Governor State
of Montana * s
JoFIN HENRY MOREHEAD, Governor State
of Nebraska -
CHESTER HARDY ALDRICH, Ex-Governor
State of Nebraska
TASKER LOWNDES ODDIE, Governor State
of Nevada
ROBERT PERKINS BASS, Ex-Governor State
of New Hampshire
WILLIAM CALHOUN McDONALD, Governor
State of New Mexico
MARTIN H. GLYNN, Governor State of New
York
WILLIAM SULZER, Ex-Governor State of New
York
JOHN ALDEN DIX, Ex-Governor State of New
York • *-
LOCKE CRAIG, Governor state of N orth Carolina
WILLIAM WALTON KITCHIN, Ex-Governor
State of North Carolina * * &
LOUIS BENJAMIN HANNA, Governor State of
North Dakota - &
JOHN BURKE, Ex-Governor State of North
Dakota s
JAMES MIDDLETON COX, Governor State of
Ohio, - -
LEE CRUCE, Governor State of Oklahoma
OSWALD WEST, Governor State of Oregon
JOHN KINLEY TENER, Governor Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania
ARAM JULES POTHIER, Governor State of
Rhode Island
COLEMAN LIVINGSTON BLEASE, Governor
State of South Carolina
FRANK MICHAEL BYRNE, Governor State of
South Dakota
BENJAMIN WADE HOOPER, Governor State
of Tennessee
OSCAR BRANCH COLOUITT, Governor State
of Texas *
WILLIAM SPRY, Governor State of Utah
ALLEN MILLER FLETCHER, Governor State
of Vermont
JOHN ABNER MEAD, Ex-Governor State of
Vermont
WILLIAM HODGES MANN, Ex-Governor Com-
monwealth of Virginia
ERNEST LISTER, Governor State of Wash-
ington
MARION E. HAY, Ex-Governor State of Wash-
ington
HENRY DRURY HATFIELD, Governor State
of West Virginia
FRANCIS EDWARD McGOVERN, Governor
State of Wisconsin.
JOSEPH MAULL CAREY, Governor State of
Wyoming
JOHN FRANKLIN ARTHUR STRONG, Gov-
ernor Territory of Alaska
WALTER ELI CLARK, Ex-Governor Territory
of Alaska •º. -
CUNO HUGO RUDOLPH, Ex-President Board
of Commissioners of the District of Columbia
ROBERT EDWARD COONTZ, Governor Island
of Guam
WALTER FRANCIS FREAR, Governor Terri-
tory of Hawaii
GEORGE WASHINGTON GOETHALS, Colo-
nel U. S. A., Chairman and Chief Engineer,
Isthmian Canal Commission
RICHARD LEE METCALFE, Head of the De-
partment of Civil Administration, Isthmian
Canal Commission
MAURICE HUDSON THATCHER, Ex-Head of
the Department of Civil Administration, Isth-
mian Canal Commission
WILLIAM CAMERON FORBES, Ex-Governor-
General of the Philippine Islands
GEORGE RADCLIFFE COLTON, Ex-Governor
Territory of Porto Rico
[4]
COUNCIL OF COMMISSIONORS
Pursuant to the By-Laws of the National Highways Association, the Trustees have
appointed for life a Council of Commissionors.
Appointments thereto have been ac-
cepted by the highway officials of the following States: —
VICTOR BOARDMAN AT KINS, Member State
Highway Commission of Alabama
JOHN CRAFT, Member State Highway Commis-
sion of Alabama
EUGENE ALLEN SMITH, Member State High-
way Commission of Alabama
LAMAR COBB, State Engineer of Arizona
REUBEN G. DYE, Chairman State Highway
Commission of Arkansas
CHARLES WARREN HIGHFILL, State High-
way Commissioner of Arkansas
ALBERT SYDNEY KILLGORE, State Highway
Commissioner of Arkansas
CHARLES DUCHESNE BLANEY, Member
State Highway Commission of California
NEWELL DYKE DARLINGTON, Member
State Highway Commission of California
BURTON AUGUSTUS TOWNE, Ex-Chairman
State Highway Commission of California
CHARLEs JOSEPH BENNETT, State High-
way Commissioner of Connecticut
SAMUEL WASHINGTON McCALLIE, State
Geologist of Georgia
WILFRED LUZERNE GIFFORD, Member
State Highway Commission of Idaho
FRANK PIERCE KING, Member State Highway
Commission of Idaho
CHARLES NEWTON LITTLE, Member State
Highway Commission of Idaho
SAMUEL ELLSWORTH BRADT, Member
State Highway Commission of Illinois
Joseph RUSSELL FULKERSON, Member
State Highway Commission of Illinois
LAFAYETTE FUNK, Member State Highway
Commission of Illinois
HENRY CLAY BEARD, State Highway Com-
missioner of Iowa
JAMES WILLIAM HOLDEN, Member State
Highway Commission of Iowa
WALTER SCOTT GEARHART, State Engineer
of Kansas
ROBERT CRAIG TERRELL, Commissioner of
Public Roads of Kentucky
WILLIAM EPHRAIM ATKINSON,
Highway Engineer of Louisiana
WILLIAM MADISON AYER, Member State
Highway Commission of Maine
PARKER LEROY HARDISON, Ex-Commis-
sioner of Highways of Maine
WILLIAM BULLOCK CLARK, State Geologist
of Maryland
PHILLIPS LEE GOLDSBOROUGH, Member
State Roads Commission of Maryland
EDWARD EVERETT GOSLIN, Member State
Roads Commission of Maryland
ANDREW RAMSEY, Member State Roads Com-
mission of Maryland
IRA REMSEN, Member State Roads Commission
of Maryland
OVINGTON EUGENE WELLER, Chairman
State Roads Commission of Maryland
CHARLES MERRITT BABCOCK, Member
State Highway Commission of Minnesota
FREDERIC SOMERS BELL, Member State
Highway Commission of Minnesota
CLARENCE IRVING McN AIR, Member State
Highway Commission of Minnesota
FRANK WASHBURN BUFFUM, State High-
way Commissioner of Missouri
ROBERT DAVIS KNEALE, Member State
Highway Commission of Montana
ARCHIBALD WARHAM MAHON, Member
State Highway Commission of Montana
GEORGE ROBERT METLEN, Member State
Highway Commission of Montana
DONALD DOUGLAS PRICE, State Engineer
of Nebraska
State
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEARNEY, State En-
gineer of Nevada
EDWIN AUGUSTUS STEVENS, State Road
Commissioner of New Jersey
ROBERT PARVIN ERVIEN, Member State
Highway Commission of New Mexico
JAMES ADAMS FRENCH, Member State High-
way Commission of New Mexico
WILLIAM CALHOUN McDONALD, Member
State Highway Commission of New Mexico =s*
JOHN NELSON CARLISLE, Commissioner of
Highways of New York
JOSEPH HYDE PRATT, State Geologist of
North Carolina
JAY WESLEY BLISS, State Engineer of North
Dakota
LOUIS BENJAMIN HANNA, Member State
Highway Commission of North Dakota
JAMES REED MARKER, State Highway Com-
missioner of Ohio
SIDNEY SUGGS, Commissioner of Highways of
Oklahoma
THOMAS BENJAMIN KAY, Member State
Highway Commission of Oregon
BEN WILSON OLCOTT, Member State High-
way Commission of Oregon
OSWALD WEST, Member
Commission of Oregon
EDWARD MANNING BIGELOW, State High-
way Commissioner of Pennsylvania
WILLIAM CLARENCE PECKHAM, Member
State Board of Public Roads of Rhode Island
John FRANCIS RICHMOND, Member State
Board of Public Roads of Rhode Island
ROBERT BYRON TREAT, Member State Board
of Public Roads of Rhode Island
EBBIE JULIAN WATSON, Commissioner of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Industries of South
Carolina
EDWARD CORNELIUS ISSENHUTH, Chair-
man State Highway Commission of South
Dakota
NIELS OLIVER MONSERUD, Member State
Highway Commission of South Dakota
BEN MARSHALL WOOD, Member State High-
way Commission of South Dakota
WILLIAM DUKE BEERS, Secretary State Road
Commission of Utah
Joseph willIAM JENSEN, Ex-Member State
Road Commission of Utah
WILLIAM SPRY, Chairman State Road Com-
mission of Utah
CHARLES WINSLOW GATES, State Highway
Commissioner of Vermont
PHILIP St. JULIEN WILSON, Ex-State High-
way Commissioner of Virginia
GEORGE PRESTON COLEMAN, State High-
way Commissioner of Virginia
wiLLIAM JACKSON ROBERTS, Ex-State
Highway Commissioner of Washington
ALEXANDER DENNIS WILLIAMS, Chairman
State Road Bureau of West Virginia
John ADAM HAZELwooD, Chairman High-
way Commission of Wisconsin
WILLIAM OTIS HOTCHKISS, Secretary High-
way Commission of Wisconsin
FREDERICK EUGENE TURNEAURE, Mem-
ber Highway Commission of Wisconsin
JAcoB HENRY van DoREN, Member High-
way Commission of Wisconsin
ADRIAN JEFFERSON PARSHALL, State En-
gineer of Wyoming
MAJoR chESTER HARDING, Highway Com-
missioner of the District of Columbia
State Highway
[5]
OFFICERS
GENERAL COLEMAN DUPONT, Wilmington, Del. Chairman Board of National Councillors
CHARLES HENRY DAVIS, C.E., South Yarmouth, Mass. President
FREDERIC REMSEN HUTTON, M.E., SC.D., New York General Secretary
JUDGE J. M. LOWE, Kansas City, Mo. Vice-President
- President National Old Trails Road Department
JESSE TAYLOR, Jamestown, O. - Vice-President and Director-General
- President Ohio Good Roads Federation Division
LUCIEN PETERS McCALLA, M.D., Boise, Idaho Vice-President
President Inter-Mountain Good Roads Department
H. B. VARNER, Lexington, N. C.) - Vice-President
President North Carolina Good Roads Division
JOSEPH HYDE PRATT, Ph.D., Chapel'Hill, N. C. Vice-President
- Secretary North Carolina Good Roads Division
A. L. WESTGARD, New York Vice-President
Director Transcontinental Highways
ELIAS VANDER HORST, C.E., New York Vice-President
Secretary to Board of National Councillors
WALDRON WILLIAMS, New York Chairman National Membership Committee
FRANCIS HILL BIGELOW, Cambridge, Mass. Assistant Treasurer
ARTHUR H. BLANCHARD, C.E., A.M., New York Consulting Engineer
TIMOTHY W. SPRAGUE, S.B., Boston, Mass. Engineer to Board of National Councillors
will waRD DUFFIELD, Harlan, Ky. Engineer of Chart Construction
STANLEY E. BATES, S.B., South Yarmouth, Mass. Engineer Highway Publications
JOHN STONE ALLEN, A.B., South Yarmouth, Mass. Editor Highway Publications
C. H. CLAUDY, Washington, D. C. - Director of Publicity
WALTER AGNEW ALSDORF, Columbus, O. Assistant Director-General
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, Philadelphia, Pa. General Counsel
COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
(Chairmen of Divisions)
GEORGE COPP WARREN, Boston Highway Engineering Contractors
BELA LYON PRATT, Boston Sculpture
WILLIAM HUBERT BURR, New York Consulting Civil Engineers
HENRY SOLON GRAVES, Washington Forestry
EDMUND TAYLOR PERKINS, Chicago National Drainage
WILLIAM MORRIS DAVIS, Cambridge Geography
By Consent — Depositories for Funds of the National Highways Association:
BANK OF AMERICA, New York
t GERMANTOWN TRUST COMPANY, Philadelphia, Pa.
SOUTHWEST NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Kansas City, Mo.
DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK, Des Moines, Ia.
WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Delaware
BOISE CITY NATIONAL BANK, Idaho
CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK, Columbus, O.
THE UNION TRUST COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Harrisburg
FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Huntington, W. Va.
PEOPLE'S TRUST COMPANY, Martinsburg, W. Va.
CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, Charleston, W. Va.
CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, Raleigh, N. C.
THE CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY, San Antonio, Tex.
PRESCOTT NATIONAL BANK, Prescott, Ariz.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Belen, N. M.
[6]
GOOD ROADS – GOOD SCHOOLS – KNOWLEDGE – PROSPERITY

[7]
CREST OF THE BLUE RIDGE HIGHWAY – NORTH CAROLINA
This road is being built by a private company. How far would “Federal Aid” at $60, $30, or $15 a mile go towards its construction or maintenance?

Coatesville º C.
** …”
V & Acº N 2'
se” ſº
rºp
Coenºvius
L. A N C A S T E R /
ºs §
Hockessiºn
Wooddae
silver Broº
3.
N
N
L
ºv.-
J.É'.
*
,
2.
N.
H
E
Nº.
-
Massey: ** Springo Nº.
_9. ºsm
Blackikº. *Vtorº yrna.
Cheswold
ADupont
§Dov
º
Millington -
L Brenfordo
-
sejº
|
|
H
Wyoming
Camden
Violao
Canterbury
Berrytowno-Felton
189
º,
Eastern
º
º º º "Z | ºft. -
wº, THREE sº (ſ -T | *.evº
* º - G - -º -
N A T I ONAL - H Y S Y. | P- - º Branch | - º
. º . Fº rºsariº 3. * 3...N. º
- º
Millsboro
a.
=º
º
- *
==Presider & *1
Ge. Gº” N Ö
º º ſº |
--- RFMºrdela Sºtings
t ways in Delaware C. ſº
ſaysh adjoinings Q Jſ note `ssºr,
Tº This Map shows Tentative locations
2 for tofa National Highways System.
P * It is hoped that Delaware willsuggest
h to the lº": ---
improvements-ſmºkeation within its O
º W
West
Longitude 76
from
Greenwich 75
AP of Delaware, showing 300 miles of proposed National Highways. These highways will
M directly serve 202,322 inhabitants of the counties through which they pass, which is 100%
of the total population of the State. The total road mileage in the State is 3,000, so that
10% in National Highways mileage will serve directly 100% of the people.
Similar maps of other States are being prepared by the Association, and will be issued as
rapidly as possible.
































































ILLUSTRATED ARGUMENTS y
FOR AND AGAINST
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
V E R S US
FEDERAL AID
- - The people throughout the United States are de-
National Highways - - -
versus Federal Aid manding that their National Government shall help
build the highways of the Nation. There are two schools
of thought as to how this can best be done: —
1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS: Being a system of roads,
interstate in character, built and maintained by the National
Government, or,
2. FEDERAL AID: Being Federal appropriations dis-
tributed among the States, on some agreed plan, for the
building of State, County, or Township roads by them, or
under the joint authority of Federal and State, County, or
Township officials.
The appended tables show the multiplicity of bills before Congress, and like-
wise the many points of view held by our law-makers.
-
A FINISHED ROAD – BUILT BY LOCAL STATUTORY LABOR!
What will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?! To
cart off the refuse would cost more than that!

[9]
**.
BILLS ADVOCATING NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Date Author No. APPROPRIATING Referred to
Total Per Annum Committee on
3-11-1908 Gallinger S. 6057 $50,000,000 $10,000,000 Agriculture and
Forestry
6-19-1911 Sutherland S. 2822 100,000,000 10,000,000 Appropriations
6-19 “ Howell H. R. 11876 || 100,000,000 10,000,000 66
8-10 “ Cullom” S. 31.97 1,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
12-16 “ McKellar* | H. R. 16096 75,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
1-15-1912 | Borland H. R. 17919 (% cost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . & 4
1-15 “ Francis H. R. 17931 100,000 In 1912 & &
3,000,000 ** 1913
5,000,000 ** 1914
2,000,000 ** 1915
4-11 ** Owen S. 6271 2,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
4–24 “ Hobson* FH. R. 23718 100,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
5- 9 “ Gore” S.J.Res. 106 35,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture and
Forestry
8- 1 “ Taylor H. R. 26082 250,000 (% cost) | Agriculture
8–17 “ Littlepage H. R. 26330 | . . . . . . . . . . 24,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
8-20 “ Carlin.” H. R. 26354 1,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 & '66 ( & & C
1-17-1913 Borland H. R. 28.188 500,000 In 1913 Agriculture
- 5,000,000 ** 1914
g 15,000,000 || “ 1915
1-17 “ Francis H. R. 28231 500,000 In 1913 & &
5,000,000 “ 1914
15,000,000 | “ 1915
1-28 “ Hobson H. R. 28471 500,000,000 or more Ways and Means s
2-10 “ Warburton | H. R. 28721 | . . . . . . . . . . 60,000,000 || Agriculture
3- 1 “ & 6 H. R. 28869 | . . . . . . . . . . 60,000,000 & &
4- 7 “ Taylor H. R. 1652 (% cost) | . . . . . . . . . . . . . t 6 &
4- 7 “ . Hobson* H. R. 1837 250,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appropriations
4- 7 “ Hobson* H. R. 1841 100,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
4- 7 “ Francis H. R. 1908 500,000 In 1914 & 6
5,000,000 ** 1915
15,000,000 ** 1916
BILLS ADVOCATING FEDERAL AID
Date Author No. APPROPRIATING Referred to
Total Per Annum Committee on
11-19-1903 Brownlow | H. R. 4508 || $24,000,000 $8,000,000 || Agriculture
12- 4–1907 Latimer S. 480 24,000,000 8,000,000 | Agriculture and
Forestry
3- 3-1910 | Bankhead | S. 6931 500,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . & 6 & 6 & 8
2-17-1911 Frazier S. 10839 1,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( & & 6 & C
4- 4 “ Flood H. R. 62 (Surplus) 25,000,000 || Ways and Means
* , 4- 5 “ Sheppard H. R. 1708 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
4- 6 “ Bankhead S. 174 500,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture and
Forestry
4-10 “ Campbell H. R. 2928 24,000,000 8,000,000 | Agriculture
4-11 “ Hughes H. R. 4019 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4-13 “ Adamson H. R. 4714 (Surplus) 50,000,000 Ways and Means
4-20 “ Cox H. R. 6308 30,000,000 10,000,000 Agriculture
4-20 “ Swanson S. 1388 50,000,000 10,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
*Surveys and Reports only. .
[10] Table continued on page 54

FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF ROAD BUILDING
Good roads were first built by the more active and
prosperous towns or townships. The larger centers of pop-
ulation grew within their limits. This attracted the road
traffic of adjacent communities. Such traffic did not help build or maintain the
roads it partly destroyed.
County Aid This destruction resulted in a demand for county appropria-
tions for road building. The moneys were first distributed among
the towns or townships on some agreed plan, and were spent by them, or under
the joint authority of county officials. Under these conditions most of such
moneys went into politics, and not into roads, and there was no uniformity in
construction or care.
As a result of this work, there was a reaction in favor of
County Roads County Roads built and maintained by the county officials.
Then, and only then, did the bulk of such appropriations get into roads, and there
was a beginning of efficiency and uniformity.
State Aid But history repeated itself as between the counties. The more
active and prosperous built and maintained good roads. These
were again destroyed by the traffic from adjacent counties. This traffic did not
help build or care for the roads it destroyed. There followed a State-wide demand
for State appropriations toward road building. Again history repeated itself in
the form of State Aid to the counties and towns, to be spent by them, or under
joint authority of the State officials. And again most of such moneys went into
politics, and not into roads, and lack of efficiency and uniformity persisted.
Town or
Township Roads
THE TYPICAL COUNTY LINE – WHERE GOOD AND BAD ROADS MEET
What will “Federal Aid” at $60 on the left hand and $15 on the right hand a mile do
towards building or maintaining either of these roads?!

[11]
A COMMON SPECTACLE – ABANDONED FARM ON A BAD ROAD
What will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?!
It would cost more than that to locate it by survey!
As a result of this waste, history once more repeated
itself and there was a demand for State Highways built and
maintained by the State under its Highway Commission. Efficiency and uni-
formity were the result, and the moneys went into roads. -
State Highways In those States which now have the best road systems
County Roads we find, as the result of the above experience, a threefold
Town Roads system, each under the exclusive jurisdiction of its properly
constituted authorities. This has produced the largest
mileage of good roads for the least expenditure. It has brought efficiency and
uniformity out of chaos, and the money has gone into roads.
The advocates of National Highways therefore claim
that such a system, built and maintained by the Na-
tional Government, is the only sane and logical course
County Roads to pursue. They claim that this would result in a four-
Town Roads fold system, each under the exclusive jurisdiction of its
properly constituted authorities. They further claim that not the least advan-
tage to be thus gained would be that:—
State Highways
National Highways
State Highways
T. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS would act as State, County,
and Town Highways within the localities through which they
passed. Therefore just so many less roads need be built and

[12]
maintained by such communities. As a result, there would be
more moneys available for the building of State, County, and
Town Roads.
STATE HIGHWAYS would likewise act as County and
Town Highways in the local communities through which they
passed. The results and benefits derived from National High-
ways would thus be accentuated, and still more moneys would
be available for the building of County and Town Roads.
COUNTY ROADS would similarly act as Town Highways,
thus again taking a burden from the shoulders of the towns
through which they passed; and, finally,
TOWN ROADS would be confined to those entirely
within their borders and yet they would have as many other
roads for local use as there were National, State, and County
Highways within their limits, built without expense to the
towns.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
In view of these historic facts, the advocates of a system of National High-
ways claim: Why not profit by the costly lessons of the past? Why let history
repeat itself now that the National Government is about to engage in road
NO ABANDONED FARMS ON THIS ROAD
What will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?!
The original location survey cost more than that!

[13]
ASPHALT BLOCK HIGHWAY
What will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?!
They cost $10,000 to $20,000 a mile to build!
building? Why waste both time and money as we have heretofore, and on so
vast a scale? Why let Federal appropriations go into politics through “Federal
Aid" instead of into National Highways, which means roads for all our people?
Why not have a fourfold system, each under the exclusive jurisdiction of prop-
erly constituted authorities, to supplement the present threefold system? Why
not thus gain efficiency, economy, uniformity, and the most rapid develop-
ment possible through a system of National Highways built and maintained
exclusively by the United States Government? Why adopt “Federal Aid " and
thus revive on a vast National scale the “pork barrel,” “graft,” and “corrup-
tion ” of County Aid and State Aid? Why not build National Highways as the
most advanced States are building State Highways, County Roads, and Town
Roads, each under the exclusive jurisdiction of their political subdivision?
“Federal Aid '' will not give the Nation roads any more than “State Aid " or
“County Aid " gave roads! The people want roads! Roads! ROADS! National
Highways will give roads; “Federal Aid "will not!
The most vicious form of Federal Aid is embodied in those bills providing for
road classification with an appropriation of a definite sum per mile, per annum,
per class. The most usual classification is (A) macadam; (B) gravel, shell, or
sand and clay; (C) dirt. The amount per annum per mile varies from $80 to $30
in Class A; $40 to $20 in Class B; and $15 to $10 in Class C. It is evident that
such appropriations, in the shape of gifts to the States and civil divisions thereof,
in being based and claimed by them upon mileage must and will be distributed
over that mileage. What can any such small sums per mile per annum do for

[14]
our roads but pay some individuals for services badly performed? This will not
build roads — let alone care for them! And yet such small sums per mile multi-
plied by the total mileage of so-called “post roads” or “free-delivery routes”
will mean hundreds of millions of dollars spent in “pork barrel,” “graft,” and
“corruption,” and never reach roads!
Thus reason the advocates of National Highways. Butlet us weigh the illus-
trated arguments of both schools of thought: —
ILLUSTRATED ARGUMENTS
FOR AND AGAINST /
NATIONAL HIGH ways
VERSUS
FEDERAL AID
DEPRECIATION – OR THE HIGH COST OF BAD ROADS
What will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?
It will not make roads to prevent this depreciation or any considerable part of it!



[15]
º: S U As
º * K E. e- Asº
* V- º O
Gºgº-
ſ—
| *F
- - -
-- f :
º º ! -- | fºunge.ºrgºt - ... " | -
- –––– : - -----i L u c = | **º
so seen c L H d wº ſ - -
*****T* | – | *; cº, \
| R O N F--- | > - —i
º; cººl - _i_s_lsº co-craft *. A c H-
locºsoni i’ or . . . . i M. A. C. |--
w {}< *. h * Al- ...”
- ºr - * |
º —J º --- - º, A wº-ºut-
S. - *
o wº º
C +- -y
* - 5 s +
national Highways Associºlon Mººre W- Q -
GENERAL cº-EMAN-DuPont - º * -r ºlº
-*a*a*-e-a-------------- º º M. -
CHARLEs. Hºw Davis c. E- gº Ø -- J.-loºd
º -
washingtºn-D, c- * \ * º: ri----—- ~
*-
--~ * oscº D.A. - C.
EENZE A ºn D : crawford; Os ALC on A
2. Q: , $º-ºº::: *|†. ... “º Ty
.." ** * * - C.
Q . I - |*
ºustº ***'. *:: * Roscowwow age" esgº 7.
* * - Laº grºw - - : -
ROAD MAP * is -º | |*|| ".
OF - - -.
MICHIGAN , cº-oscº -, *loºdwin
sHowing - **** . . . I claſſ= | * sº-
what state AID. Does - *E* an
Anº -
WHAT FEDERAL AID woul-D-Do ** "...i.alsº -
NAMELY newsrooftºº." 15 $
==L-I- a. *--" * - * Hºº. ** -
ROADS .* -- . . 'ºt --! # 1 º' .
- T-- * - ºu-ºº! - ***** sºus-g
r -
BEGINNING NOWHERE X ºº::i-ſºº. 3" ºf sº." -:
-º-º-º-º: ---- --- -
ENDING NOWHERE ** "º #. ... ſº-º-º: tº..."
- * * st Jºhs. .." ºf ºvus +.
sCALE of MILEs. - Lºua º .* \ - *:
º “iº. . - || CLINTQN *** *****
Q. M. I. A - - - -
APRIL 1913 - -- | Sº
* .. oak L.A.N.C. §
: *** le anon º-> ...Tº S
a n= B A Rºy - | ***asºn luvnºston --
| , “...º.º. 1 - L.
º +. Bºttº -- - *_ st-clamº
*** *::..º * . -* ** | -*
: " :º. " ") Jackson was ten aw| *
º .* - lº_
a-leºng- e o
rºº º: * e.
isſ- *T: "ºile saw etisºl
! --- - Eºre
MICHIGAN REPUDIATES “ROADS BEGINNING NOWHERE,
ENDING NOWHERE **
- MICHIGAN NOW CLAIMS “ROADS BEGINNING SOME WHERE, ENDING
* SOMEWHERE.” GOOD !
As a result of “State Aid '' the above map shows innumerable “dead '' ends.
Similar “dead" ends will result from “Federal Aid '' throughout the Nation,
while National Highways will produce such results as State Highways in Massa-
chusetts. Some people in Michigan resent the publication of this map and state
there are now many roads extending to “county lines "1 They do not state
where they go beyond such county lines! One cannot resent the above map and
at the same time favor “Federal Aid "! One cannot resent the above map and
claim Michigan is no longer doing this without supporting National Highways.
If Michigan is no longer doing this she should not resent the illustration of her
past error in helping others to avoid similar error.



























[16]
dºwnlos
…lae»：（-1）^www.
awae
woloniae
（*）'）;
£1.51 （11）：
ºz. 0， s1 01 s0º
statiſ， ao ſanaes
！!!！!！! HWA:MINOS 5D NIC1N3）
AT3 www.
quae
od saw Maelº ºlwls lliw H^^
±√∂√∞i√∞
SLLOEISTAHOVSSVW, .40 (IvTN 01WOH
！!！! HINWEILNOS 5D NINNIÐ:Iº
SCIVO!！!
Oq ^TTINA SAWIWAHEDIH TwNOI. LvN LVHM
ſaen=\\
H S d w v H^w = N
|-
*： cu molºniae swae
………….…！！！！！
ºra o swawo a， sanae，
-owoomoo one-
=,
3,
+
Nou wioossw ſsawwa HĐIH Twº Nollwn
…………！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
0
}：maeuae
ſwaraekmamaºs
ſignāluwarae
II
)W„ae
|º ：ſº\，Mae ſae，
ſaeuºueae[]
■■■■■.
±
xºgºs，oſ













[17]
DIFFICULTIES ON THE ROAD TO EDUCATION -
Do you think “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile will help these children towards an education?
Or will it help pay a salary for some service poorly performed?
GRAVEL ROAD – NO TRUANTS HERE
Will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile prevent this road deteriorating to the condition of the upper
picture? How much more will it do than again pay some one a salary for
services poorly performed?



[18]
BAD ROADS – LOW TAXES – NO RETURNS
Will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile increase the returns, or lower the taxes, or produce a road like
- the one below?
GOOD ROADS — FAIR TAXES – BIG RETURNS
How far will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile go towards building or maintaining this road?



[19]
STUDIES IN CULVERT DESIGN
Do you think “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile would help much in a case of t
ind?
his k
GRAVEL ROAD – CONCRETE CULVERT – WHICH IS THE CHEAF ERP
Do you think “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile will produce such “Good Roads Everywhere”— let
alone the culvert?!


[20]
- - - - º - . - --
-- º - -
WITH THESE CONDITIONS FARMING IS PROFITABLE ONLY WITHIN A SHORT
RADIUS OF A MARKET TOWN
Will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile change these conditions?
-
-
WITH IMPROVED ROADS AND IMPROVED VEHICLES FARMING IS PROFITABLE
E VERY WHERE
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile maintain these conditions?


[21]
-
IN AMERICA WE WASTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY, DUE SOLELY
TO BAD ROADS
Will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile stop this waste or add millions of dollars to it?! There are over
1,000,000 miles of similar roads.
IN EUROPE THEY REALIZE THE VALUE OF A HIGHLY IMPROVED ROAD
How far will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile go towards building the wall—let alone the road?!



[22]
wATER 1/3 CENT PER TON MILE
RAILROAD 3/4 CENT PER TON MILE
BAD ROAD 25 CENTS PER TON MILE
will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile bring down the cost to 10 cents?
BRICK ROAD 6 TO 8 CENTS PER TON MILE
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile do this? Such a road costs $10,000 a mile!


[23]
CLAY – BAD ROAD – SLOW – INEFFICIENT – COSTLY
1,000,000 miles or more of such roads as this at $15 a mile equal $15,000,000 “in the mud”
via “Federal Aid”! Does this mean roads?!
INTERSTATE TRUNK-LINE TRAFFIC – NEW YORK TO BOSTON
OILED MACADAM – GOOD ROAD – RAPID – EFFICIENT – CHEAP
$60 a mile via “Federal Aid” towards a road costing $10,000 a mile! What will it do?!


[24]
|
º - - -
TWO HORSES PULL O TO 1,500 POUNDS THROUGH MUD ON THE LEVEL
Do you believe that “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile will change these conditions?
-
TWO HORSES CAN PULL 5,000 to 10,000 POUNDS OVER BRICK ON THE LEVEL
Do you believe that “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile will produce these conditions?

[25
DEPRECIATION – OR THE HIGH COST OF BAD ROADS
Will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile prevent any part of this loss?
MACADAM ROAD – THE SOLUTION
Is “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile “The Solution”?



[26]
WATER – THE MASTER
Will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile get the mastery of the water alone?
BRICK ROAD – WATER — THE SERVANT
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile either gain or maintain this servitude”


[27
MACADAM ROAD – NO MAINTENANCE
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile restore this road, costing maybe $5,000 a mile?
- - - º
- - -
- - -
LIMESTONE MACADAM – IN THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION
How far will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile go towards building this road, costing maybe $5,000 a
mile?


[28 )
TYPES OF HIGHVVAYS
WITH
ILLUSTRATED ARGUMENTS
FOR AND AGAINST
NATION AL HIGH WAYS
VERSUS
FEDERAL AID
| 29 |
NOIJLVIOOSSV SĀVAAHĐIH TVNOIJLVN GIHJ, KA CIGISO&O&& SĀVAAHĐIH TIVNOIJLVN HO SGITIW 000′09
（º.ſ.v.1$ ſ-№vº NI HLIAVA NO !.1,\73N
•©"| NI SILNE W3AO?-leſ W I NO1.J.
•\/] ©O$$\^ SAVAA H so||H. “TV’NOJ. ILŅ*№
Ņ
!！!SN
©SA A. 1 §
（\e.
O&
çº}
O�
?????„Ț” ÎN N
¿ №
N \Ë
Š§§:
7 №，¿№nosnºof+39-TŐ: ,∞
Ņ ſiŚŃ*№gº∞
§§§§№ |}›‹*
§|35，8ſ）,∞
SNŻeń ºſºſ，■Ä
§§،ſ!№ț¢<！，&}
SÒ}È，$&
H.J. O.1, JLS
yvy
W3.ILSÅS SÅ
NO!.l.\!
v N ×
º.l.v/15
ºnwy
！ AſHS
l.l.
HOY7£ 1.
3.L.
\，\! \，
1VfLN）, 8^^O
B_1.
§§
N
+）（\'*' ： ')
S
§
~%（%)
§§”ŃÑ（/_4U，
§§©®，
Ģ%
ſaeng:Aſºº
§ſºº.！\，$ſsn，∞
§§§S^ ， ，
§§yº. №
§§ © ®£§§
§§§şs
Èſ0~ → ſſ ∞ √ſous ºoº
}WW ！['º'









50,000 Miles of National Highways Will:—
Serve directly 60,000,000 people, or 66% of the total population.
Serve abutting 24,000,000 people, or 26% of the total population.
A total of 84,000,000 people, or 92% of the total population.
Traverse 393 congressional districts, or 95% of the total.
Serve direct or abutting 2,471 counties, or 84% of the total.
Reach and connect every large and important city.
Connect every capital of every State with the National Capital.
Form only 2%% of our total road mileage, but include all main routes.
Carry 50% of our total road tonnage, estimated at 5,000,000,000 tons, at a saving
of more than $300,000,000 per annum in carrying-charges.
Cost less than $1,000,000,000 to build, and this cost will be saved several times
per annum.
Accentuate road building and improvement by States, Counties, and Towns.
Raise the standard of road building and maintenance by all communities.
Provide steady employment for all idle and unemployed.
Provide remunerative employment for delinquents and materially improve their
condition, besides aiding them towards re-establishment in the community as
desirable citizens.
Add to the annual increase of our National wealth not less than $300,000,000.
Save annually in wear and tear of vehicles not less than $500,000,000.
Increase land values adjacent to such highways over $600,000,000.
Increase the prosperity of the farmer more than any other improvement.
Reduce the cost of living more than most any other factor.
Provide better social conditions in the rural communities and thus elevate their
intelligence and their moral well-being.
Make rural life more attractive, facilitate intercommunication, and thus reduce
migration to cities and encourage the movement “back to the farms.”
Enable the building of rural schools and thus reduce illiteracy.
Increase travel throughout the country, inducing people to “See America First,”
thus keeping home annually more than $250,000,000.
In other words,
Favor, foster, and further the development of Our Country
In the length and breadth 6f these United States of America
By securing the benefits,
Social, moral, commercial, industrial, material, educational, and personal,
In the progress and uplift of the American people
Which follow in the train of easy intercommunication and transit
Between the great centers of population and distribution
And the great rural productive areas of the Nation,
And thus “bind the States together in a common brotherhood,
And thus perpetuate and preserve the Union.”
[31]
EARTH ROAD – MAINTENANCE BY DRAGGING
Nearly 2,000,000 miles of such roads with “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile means $30,000,000 a year
for politics—not for roads!
GRAVEL ROAD — MAINTENANCE BY DRAGGING (HONE)
About 100,000 miles of such roads with “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile means more money for
politics and still less for roads!


[32]
SAND-OIL ROAD – OIL AND SAND MIXED
These roads cost $3,000 to $5,000 a mile. Will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile help these roads or
help politics?!
ºrrº
-
-
GRAVEL ROAD – HEAVY ASPHALTIC OIL SURFACE
These roads cost $2,000 to $4,000 a mile. Will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile help these roads
or only pay salaries for services badly performed?!



[33]
SAND CLAY ROAD – ELEVATING-GRADER AT WORK
Nearly 50,000 miles of such roads with “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile means still more money
for politics and less for roads!
BUILDING SAND CLAY ROAD NEAR NASHVILLE, N. C.
These roads cost $1,000 to $3,000 a mile. Will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile help these roads or
help politics?!


[34]
BUILDING A SHELL ROAD IN THE SOUTH
These roads cost $2,000 to $5,000 a mile. How much will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile do towards
helping these roads?
LIMESTONE MACADAM
These roads cost $3,000 to $6,000 a mile. Will “Federal Aid” at $30 a mile go into them or
into politics?!


[35]
MACADAM ROAD – WATER-BOUND METHOD
These roads cost $4,000 to $10,000 a mile. How far will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile go in
building or maintaining such roads?
LAYING TELFORD FOUNDATION
These roads cost $6,000 to $15,000 a mile. For how long will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile pay
the labor of the 17 men shown in the picture?!


[36]
MACADAM ROAD – ASPHALT SURFACE
These roads cost $8,000 to $18,000 a mile, Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile go into maintenance
or into politics? Which do you think?!
MACADAM ROAD – OILED SURFACE
These roads cost $5,000 to $12,000 a mile. Are they the kind you want? Will “Federal Aid” at
$60 a mile help give them to you?!


[37]
These roads cost $8,000 to $15,000 a mile. Do you want some roads like this? If so, do you
think “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile will produce them?!
TAR MACADAM ROAD –PENETRATION METHOD
These roads cost $6,000 to $12,000 a mile. If you want such roads do you think “Federal Aid.”
at $60 a mile will give them to you?


[38]
-
A -
- N º
- Nº. . . º
TAR MACADAM ROAD — TAR-SPRAYING MACHINE
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile pay for more than 30 to 60 feet of such roads? There are
5,280 feet in one mile!
TAR MACADAM ROAD – MIXING METHOD
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile pay more than two days' wages of this “gang”? How many
feet of road will that mean?


[39]
BITUMINOUS MACADAM ROAD – MIXING METHOD
These roads cost $8,000 to $15,000 a mile. Do you want them? Will you get them by
“Federal Aid” at $60 a mile?
* . º .
-
ASPHALT BLOCK ROAD — MACADAM FOUNDATION
These roads cost $10,000 to $20,000 a mile. How many feet can be built by “Federal Aid” at
$60 a mile?


[40]
BRICK ROAD – LAYING CONCRETE FOUNDATION
“Federal Aid” at $60 a mile will not pay for this machinery and “gang” more than one day!
How many feet of road does that mean?
BRICK ROAD – ROLLING THE SAND CUSHION
How much material for this road can be bought by “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile?


[41]
BRICK ROAD — LAYING THE BRICK
Say there are 600,000 bricks a mile in this road laid by hand. How many will be laid by
“Federal Aid” at $60 a mile?!
BRICK ROAD – ROLLED AND READY FOR GROUTING
Some of you want some roads like this. “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile will not buy the
material for grouting!


[42]
BRICK ROAD – GROUTING
“Federal Aid” at $60 a mile might pay the salary of one of the two “chaps” looking on! Who
do you suppose they are?!
BRICK ROAD – APPLYING A SECOND COAT OF CEMENT
These roads cost $9,000 to $16,000 a mile. $60 a mile of “Federal Aid” will not build 25 feet
of such a road. A mile is 5,280 feet!


[43]
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
CONCRETE ROAD – DEPOSITING THE MATERIAL
To survey such a road would cost more than $60 a mile given by “Federal Aid” plans!
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
CONCRETE ROAD – STRIKING THE CROWN
Such good roads cannot be produced or helped by “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile!


[44]
Courtesy Asso. of an. Portland Cement Mr. -
CONCRETE ROAD — TROWELING SURFACE
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile pay for so small a part of this road construction as troweling
the surface? We think not!
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
CONCRETE ROAD – ROUGHENING SURFACE
Thousands of miles of these roads are needed throughout the country. Can “Federal Aid” at $60.
a mile supply this need?


[45]
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
concrete Road – seasonING witH 2" EARTH cover
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile spread and remove this “seasoning” material?!
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
FINISHED CONCRETE ROAD
These roads cost $7,000 to $15,000 a mile. You want miles of them. Will “Federal Aid” at
$60 a mile help you to get them?


[46]
- -
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
CONCRETE ROAD UNAFFECTED BY WEATHER CONDITIONS
Will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile pay for one culvert on such a road?!
|
Courtesy Asso. of Am. Portland Cement Mfrs.
CONCRETE BRIDGE
In all “Federal Aid” legislation bridges are included. How far will $60, $30, or $15 a mile go
towards building such a bridge?!


[47]
WHAT COURSE SHALL THE NATION FOLLOWP
There are over one hundred and twenty-five (125) road bills before Congress.
They represent all manner of views, good, bad, and indifferent! Many have
been introduced by those who have given much political thought to the subject!
But how many based on expert knowledge, study, experience, and thorough
technical investigation? How many are based on the result of scientific consid-
eration on the part of a broadly technical body of men well qualified to investi-
gate and consider the subject from its economic, educational, agricultural, com-
mercial, industrial, social, moral, military, engineering, legislative, constructive,
maintenance, and financial bearing on the future well-being of the Nation and
its people? How many based on any knowledge of traffic facts, costs, etc., suffi-
cient to arrive at an intelligent conclusion? There has never been a general
road-traffic census taken. Until one is taken it is impossible to arrive at either
a wise or sound conclusion. Until this information is gained it is extravagant
and absurd to appropriate millions of dollars for road building! If this is done it
will be for the purpose of “graft ‘’ and “corruption ” and politics, and not for
roads!
If we are to have Federal Aid, such legislation must follow one of two plans:
either an outright gift of Government funds, apportioned among the States, to
be spent by them as they may deem desirable, or Government funds apportioned
among the States, to be expended by the United States Government under pre-
scribed regulations without interference from State authorities. Any middle
course of joint authority over location, design, and supervision means in sub-
stance and in practice the control by the United States authorities over all State
roads upon which Government funds are spent; or, in the attempt to prevent it,
then conflict and failure or corruption. • * -,
In the Federal Aid class should be included those bills designated, especially
to cover rural free delivery routes. The development of such roads cannot be
considered as creating a system of National Highways, because they are only the
outer fringe located in sparsely settled regions and disconnected from any pos-
sible system of National Highways.
Any National Highways legislation must also, if enacted, follow one of two
plans: either the building of certain specific highways, or the building of a system
of National Highways. The latter would bear to the State Highways the same
relation that State Highways bear to County and Town Roads. *
It is too early to arrive at a conclusion for or against either Federal Aid or
National Highways legislation. The subject is one of the greatest material,
economic, and social questions to be rightly solved by the Nation. Material, be-
cause of the vast sums to be expended. Economic, because of the Nation-wide
reduction in cost of distribution which will be attained. Social, because of the
opportunity and encouragement to the country folk to come in contact with their
fellow men, women, and children — especially the last two. They can get this
by no other means. Can any one looking at the illustrations believe otherwise!
Such a great question should not be lightly decided. No large appropriation
should be made without deep study and forethought — without knowing the
way we should go and where we should land.
People in general think they know the difference between a good road and a
[48]
bad road. They want and need good roads. They think hard roads are good and
soft roads bad. This, however, is not the National problem. We do not now want
to know what kind of roads to build, nor when, nor where. What we do want to
know is whether or not the Nation should help in road building. If answered
affirmatively, then, whether we shall have legislation favorable to Federal Aid,
or National Highways, or both. And finally, when, where, and how. Wise action
cannot come without wise study on the part of a representative and properly
constituted commission. The vastness of the undertaking, its cost, its benefits
or otherwise, far outstrip any other public work heretofore undertaken. We
should move slowly and after due deliberation. The more haste just now the less
speed there will be in our road building!
Without discussing the merits or demerits of the various bills before Con-
gress, and their many different provisions, it can be said that they all have the
fundamental fault of forthwith committing the Nation, at great cost, either to
building a system of National Highways or to giving Federal Aid in the building
of State Roads. No such legislation should be considered until sufficient informa-
tion is secured to enable Congress to act intelligently, and with a full knowledge
of the whole subject.
It is becoming generally recognized that road building and improvement will
be of greater benefit to the people at large than almost any other one National
- - - -
ONE METHOD OF ROAD “IMPROVEMENT" (?)
What will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?! It
would not pay the cost of hauling off the rocks on its surface!

[49]
ANOTHER METHOD – STATE HIGHWAY
What will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?! It
would not buy the lumber for fencing, or pay the cost of painting up-keep!
development. It is of vastly greater importance than the Panama Canal can
ever be. Roads are free to the public. Their future development is as important
to the people as railroads, telegraphs, telephones, or the postal service. They will
be paid for by the people. They will be owned and used, not by the few, but by
all. Vast sums are to be spent upon them, and their wise planning and building
are of the utmost importance.
Substantially no great Government work has been undertaken, or large
appropriation made therefor, without a careful preliminary investigation and
report to Congress, thus enabling it to act wisely and with discretion. Why
should the building of a system of National Highways — the greatest and most
important of all — be undertaken with little or no knowledge before Congress
of the subject or its needs? The magnitude of the project is such, and many of its
aspects are so technical, that it cannot properly be considered in the first instance
by a congressional committee; and to refer it to one of the regularly constituted
executive departments would unduly burden such department and interfere with
routine work, even assuming it was qualified. The wisest course would seem to be
the creation of a special National Highways Commission, to investigate the entire
subject and report to Congress at the earliest practicable date. Such has been
the course pursued with all great public works, including the Panama Canal.
We would have considered it absurd for a non-technical committee of Congress-
men to sit in Washington and commit this Nation to the great National irriga-

[50]
tion projects, the Sault Sainte Marie Canal, the vast river and harbor improve-
ments of the Nation, and, finally, five hundred or more millions for the Isthmian
Canal. This is no reflection on the work of any congressional committee. It is
an attack on the method. Before the Nation was committed to any of these
great public works expert commissions were created. They were given ample
appropriations. They made surveys and reports from investigations on the
ground. Various locations were considered in each case. Estimates of cost were
prepared. Operating and maintenance charges were considered. Probable traffic
and revenue therefrom were estimated.
Why should not all this be done for highways before we as a Nation are com-
mitted to either a system of National Highways or Federal Aid, so called? If
National Highways, we want to know: Where? How long? How wide? How
built? What material? At what cost? What proportionate traffic will they
carry? What will it cost to maintain them? How much will they reduce the
cost of transportation? How much will they increase land and other investment
values? But we could continue indefinitely! If we are to have Federal Aid, what
form shall it take? A gift from the Nation to the States on some agreed plan of
apportionment? Joint selection of location, and joint construction and mainte-
nance on the part of National and State or local authorities? Or Federal authority
and jurisdiction without State or local interference? And above all, the benefits
to be derived. The cost of obtaining these benefits. The reduction there-
from in cost of transportation. Why Federal Aid instead of National Highways,
with the facts and figures to support or refute the claims of both? But again we
could continue indefinitely! Can such investigation and a wise determination be
arrived at except by an expert commission? We think not.
To reach a wise and intelligent conclusion of our National road problem re-
quires a road-traffic census. Otherwise we have no correct data enabling us to
arrive at the truth. Until we have this no large appropriations should be made,
or else they will be squandered in politics and never reach roads. To take a proper
road-traffic census it must cover a period of not less than one year. It would
probably cost not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000), which is only a little
more than forty thousand dollars ($40,000) per State. Five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000) would be little enough for the other expenses of a properly
constituted National Highways Commission — or two and one half million
dollars ($2,500,000) total.
With this object in view the following bill is suggested: —
[51]
A BILL
For Congress to Create a National Highways Commission and
Prescribing Its Powers and Duties
PROPOSED a BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ASSOCIATION
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. That a Commission is hereby created, to be called the “Na-
tional Highways Commission,” to investigate, collect information, and report
to Congress on the Highways of the United States, together with recommenda-
tions as to the proper policy of the National Government in respect thereto
(whether by the establishment of a system of National Highways, or by Federal
Aid in the building of State Roads, or otherwise), and as to the most appropriate
legislation to carry such policy into effect.
SECTION 2. That the National Highways Commission shall consist of a
Chairman as the executive head in responsible charge thereof, and of thirteen
additional Commissioners as an “Advisory Council.”
SECTION 3. That said Commission shall be appointed as follows:
First. The Chairman shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
Second. The thirteen members of the “Advisory Council ' shall be appointed
by the Chairman, by and with the advice and consent of the President, and shall
be respectively qualified to represent the following interests in the body politic:
(1) Agriculture, (2) Commerce, (3) Construction, (4) Economics, (5) Education,
(6) Engineering, (7) Finance, (8) Legislation, (9) Maintenance and Traffic,
(10) Materials and Machinery, (11) Military, (12) Transportation, (13) Travel,
Touring, and Recreation.
Third. Vacancies occurring in the Commission shall be filled in the same
manner as hereinbefore provided for original appointments.
Fourth. Any member of the Commission shall be subject to removal by the
President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
SECTION 4. That the Chairman shall receive a salary of twenty-five
thousand dollars ($25,000) per annum, and each other Commissioner a salary of
five thousand dollars ($5,000) per annum.
SECTION 5. That the powers and duties of the Chairman shall be:
First. To have complete executive charge of the work provided for by Sec-
tion 1 of this Act; to sign all papers on behalf of the Commission; and to direct
the activities of the other members of the Commission.
Second. To appoint and at his pleasure to remove such attorneys, engineers,
assistants, secretaries, clerks, and other employees as he may deem necessary for
the purposes of the Commission; to fix their compensation; and to prescribe their
duties and direct the performance thereof.
Third. To rent and equip such offices, laboratories, exhibition or meeting
halls, and other premises, as he may deem proper for the purposes of the Com-
mission, and in such place or places as he may deem proper.
Fourth. To collect, classify, tabulate, and record all information which he
may deem relevant to the purposes of the Commission; and for the same pur-
poses to conduct experiments, make surveys, and carry on investigations as he
may deem proper; and from time to time to publish and distribute bulletins and
reports of the work done by the Commission, and to give the same publicity in
such other ways as he may deem advisable.
Fifth. To request any and all departments and officers of the United States
Government to furnish to the Commission such information and co-operation
as he may require; and the same shall be so furnished to the extent of the powers
of such department or officer.
[52]
Sixth. To incur such expenses in connection with the work of the Commis-
sion as he may deem necessary or proper therefor; and to sign vouchers covering
all such expenses, which vouchers shall be full authority to the Treasurer of the
United States to pay the amounts specified to the parties named therein.
Seventh. To prepare and submit to the President of the United States, not
later than December 31, 1915, a full and detailed report of the work of the Com-
mission, of its recommendations and the reasons therefor, and of all its expendi-
tures; which report shall be forthwith transmitted by the President to Congress.
SECTION 6. That the duty of the “Advisory Council ' shall be to assist
the Chairman as he may direct, and to advise with him at his request or on their
own initiative. g
SECTION 7. That the term of office of the Commissioners and their suc-
cessors appointed hereunder shall end upon the delivery of their final report to
the President, but not later in any event than the thirty-first day of December,
1915.
SECTION 8. That for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
Act, there is hereby appropriated the sum of two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000), out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
SECTION 9. That this Act shall be known as the National Highways Act;
and shall take effect upon its passage.
“A Bill ” is designed to accomplish the following main objects: —
(a) The gaining of complete and reliable information,
within a reasonable time, as a basis upon which to determine
a policy and to frame proper legislation.
(b) The gaining of this information through a broadly
representative Commission, whose work will necessarily evoke
discussion and crystallize public opinion.
(c) The concentration of the authority and responsibility
of the Commission upon a single capable man, carefully
chosen, subject to removal for cause, and ably supported by
an “Advisory Council '' representing all related activities
(following therein the precedent which has proved so suc-
cessful in the case of the Panama Canal).
It is believed that Congress will seriously consider and pass a bill which has
the united support of those who believe in wise National Legislation for the
development of the Highways of the Nation. It is hoped that a bill drawn upon
the lines above suggested will prove worthy of united support.
CHARLES HENRY DAVIS, C.E., President.
Approved:
COLEMAN DU PONT,
Chairman Board of National Councillors.
Executed at Washington, D.C., this first day of January, 1914.
FREDERIC REMSEN HUTTON, M.E., Sc.D.,
General Secretary.
| 53 ]
Continued from page Io
BILLS ADVOCATING FEDERAL AID (Continued)

APPROPRIATING
Date Author No. Referred to
Total Per Annum Committee on
5- 1-1911 Swanson S. 1891 $100,000,000 $20,000,000 || Post-Offices and
* Post Roads
5- 4 “ Austin H. R. 8667 50,000,000 10,000,000 || Appropriations
5-18 “ Hobson H. R. 10009 500,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
5-18 “ Hobson H. R. 10010 || 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
5-18 “ Hobson* H. R. 10012 500,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
6-16 “ Anthony H. R. 11726 5,000,000 (% cost) Appropriations
6-21 “ Simmons S. 2846 1,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tabled
6-21 “ Byrnes H. R. 11969 1,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appropriations
7- 5 “ Swanson S. 2935 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Tabled
7–22 “ Howard H. R. 12739 (Surplus) (3% cost) Ways and Means
7–26 “ French H. R. 12825 | 100,000,000 20,000,000 || Appropriations
8-10 “ Shackleford | H. R. 13491 || 100,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . & 6
8-11 “ Shackleford | H. R. 13501 | Class A $80 per rhile Agriculture
66 6 & & &
& 6 B : 6 & & 4
66 D 10 & 6 66
8-16 “ Linthicum H. R. 13709 || 25,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interstate and
7,000,000 In 1914 Foreign Com-
8,000,000 ** 1915 InerCe
10,000,000 ** 1916
12- 4 “ Griest H. R. 14128 (3% cost) | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
12-12 “ Russell H. R. 15472 (3% cost) | . . . . . . . . . . . . . & 4
12-16 “ Prouty H. R. 16097 5,000,000 In 1912 66
10,000,000 ** 1913
15,000,000 ** 1914
20,000,000 ** 1915
30,000,000 ** 1916
12-19 “ Candler H. R. 16283 (Surplus) 25,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
12-19 “ Candler H. R. 16284 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Agriculture
12-20 “ Oldfield H. R. 16443 100,000,000 20,000,000 & 6
1- 5-1912 | Shackleford | H. R. 17018 Class A $80 per mile & &
& 4 B 40 6 & & 6
66 C 20 & & & &
66 D 10 & 4 & 4
1- 5 “ Anderson H. R. 17013 || 30,000,000 (% cost) 66
1-13 ** Taggart H. R. 17821 (2% of cost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1-15 “ Hobson H. R. 17928 100,000,000 2,000,000 66
1-17 “ Bell H. R. 18162 (Entire cost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
1-19 “ Byrnes H. R. 18339| 10,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appropriations
1-22 “ McGuire H. R. 18491 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Agriculture
2–26 “ Ferris H. R. 20837 | . . . . . . . . . . (Surplus) Ways and Means
3- 5 “ Underwood” H.J.Res.262 25,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rules
3-26 “ Hensley H. R. 22347 | 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Agriculture
(3% cost)
3-29 “ Goeke H. R. 22592 | Class A $80 per mile Post-Offices and
“ B 40 “ “ Post Roads
6 & C 20 & C & 4
& 6 D & & & 6
3-29 “ Cox H. R. 22579 (Surplus) 50,000,000 | Ways and Means
3-29 “ Shackleford | H. R. 22581 Class A $30 per mile Agriculture
& 4 B ; 6 & & 4
3–29 “ White H. R. 22583 (Surplus) 50,000,000 || Ways and Means
3-29 “ Neeley H. R. 22585 (Surplus) 25,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
3-30 “ Byrns H. R. 22646 | Class A $30 per mile Agriculture
6 & & 6 & 4
. . . . . . .
*Surveys and Reports only.
[54]
BILLS ADVOCATING FEDERAL AID (Continued)
APPROPRIATING
Date Author No. Referred to
Total Per Annum Committee on
3-30-1912 || Rubey H. R. 22652 (Surplus) $25,000,000 || Ways and Means
4- 2 “ Burnett H. R. 22768 || Class A $30 per mile Post-Offices and
“ B 20 “ “ Post Roads
& & C 10 6 & & 6
4- 2 “ Raker H. R. 22773 || Class A $30 per mile Agriculture
& 4 B ; 66 6 &
4- 3 “ Powers H. R. 22830 $75,000,000 (% cost) & &
4- 5 “ Hanna H. R. 22909 | Class A $25 per mile 6 &
& 4 B 20 & 4 & 6
& 6 C 15 & 4 & &
4- 6 “ Shackleford | H. R. 22952 | Class A $25 “ “ 66
& & B 20 & & & 4
& 6 C 15 6 & 6 &
4- 8 “ Byrns H. R. 22998 || Class A $30 “ “ & C
& & B 20 6 & & &
6 & C 10 & 6 & 4
4–25 “ Langley H. R. 23770 24,000,000 8,000,000 & &
4–26 “ Sims H. R. 23826 || 10,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
4–29 “ Myers S. 6600 (% cost) | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
1- 7-1913 Swanson S. 8003 | . . . . . . . . . . 25,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
1-22 “ Moon H. R. 28356 | Class A $50 per mile & 6 6 & 6 & C &
& 6 B 25 6 & & &
& 4 C 10 & & & 6
1-29 “ Jackson S. 8305 (% cost) 10,000,000 6 & & 6 & 6 & 6
2-14 ** Madden H. R. 28760 | . . . . . . . . . . 25,000,000 | Agriculture
4- 7 “ Flood H. R. 146 | . . . . . . . . . . (Surplus) Ways and Means
4- 7 “ Hobson H. R. 1830 500,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
4- 7 “ Hobson H. R. 1840 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
4- 7 “ Hobson H. R. 1843 || 100,000,000 2,000,000 | Agriculture
4- 7 “ Hobson* H. R. 1845 500,000 100,000 & 6
4- 7 “ Madden H. R. 1888 Surplus not
Exceeding 25,000,000 & &
4-14 “ Borland H. R. 2864 (% cost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 *
4-17 “ Jackson S. 1169 | . . . . . . . . . . 10,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
4-21 “ Oldfield H. R. 3344 || 100,000,000 20,000,000 | Agriculture
4-26 “ Campbell H. R. 4303 24,000,000 8,000,000 66
6-26 “ Bell H. R. 6443 | 100,000,000 20,000,000 66
7- 2 “ Dent H. R. 6585 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roads
8-12 “ Hobson H. R. 7387 (% cost) | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 &
8–26 “ Hensley H. R. 7751 100,000,000 20,000,000 & 6
9- 9 “ Byrnes H. R. 8009 10,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appropriations
9-15 “ Bankhead | S. 31.13 25,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
9-29 “ Ferris H. R. 8639 | . . . . . . . . . . 24,000,000 || Ways and Means
10-15 “ Adamson H. R. 8885 . . . . . . . . . . $15 per mile Roads
11- 1 ** Whitacre H. R. 9110 (% cost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ways and Means
11-20 ** Shackleford | H. R. 9333 Class A $60 per mile Roads
& 6 & 6 & 6
6 & B ; 66 66
11-20 ** Smith S. 3452 Class A $60 per mile Agriculture and
“ B 30 “ “ Forestry
& 6 C 15 66 6 &
11-26 “ Keating H. R. 9409 || Class A $60 per mile Roads
& & 6 6
6 & B ; 66 66
12- 1 “ Overman S. 3510 330,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
* Surveys and Reports only.
[ 55]
BILLS ADVOCATING FEDERAL AID (Continued)
APPROPRIATING
Author No. Referred to
Total Per Annum Committee on
| Stephens H. R. 9756 $3,000,000 In 1914 Roads
- 6,000,000 ** 1915
12,000,000 ** 1916 etc.
Byrnes H. R. 9757 3,000,000 In 1914 Roads
6,000,000 || “ 1915
12,000,000 ** 1916 etc.
| Lee H. R. 9758 3,000,000 In 1914 Roads
6,000,000 ** 1915
12,000,000 ** 1916 etc.
Gore S. 3545 50,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture
Candler H. R. 9759 || 100,000,000 $20,000,000 || Roads
| Tribble H. R. 10001 | . . . . . . . . . . 20,000,000 --
Hayden | H. R. 10003 25,000,000 || “
| Byrns H. R. 10312|| . . . . . . . . . . 2,000,000 --
Lea S. 3638 | . . . . . . . . . . 2,000,000 | Post-Offices and
Post Roads
Woodruff H. R. 10404 (94 cost) | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roads
Poindexter | S. 3667 (% cost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
- Post Roads
Saunders | H. R. 10521 25,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roads
Swanson S. 3689 25,000,000 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Offices and
Post Roads
| Ten Eyck H. R. 10522 | . . . . . . . . . . 20,000,000 || Roads
Moss H. R. 10529 | . . . . . . . . . . 10,000,000 --
Edwards H. R. 10826 (33 cost) Not over --
96,000,000
Stephens H. R. 10849 25,000,000 | Post-Offices and
- Post Roads
Barkley H. R. 11293 25,000,000 || Roads
Moon H. R. 11517 25,000,000 --
H.R. 11686 25,000,000 --
AN AVERAGE AMERICAN ROAD IN
Date
12-3-1913
12-3 *
12- 3 **
12-3 *
12- 3 *
12-6 “
12- 6 “
12–11 **
12-12 **
12-12 “
12-12 “
12-15 “
12–15 “
12-15 “
12-15 “
12-17 “
12-17 “
1-12-1914
1-13 **
1-15 “
Shackleford
WET WEATHER


[56)
ONE REASON WHY LIVING IS COSTLY
What will “Federal Aid” at $15 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?!
Ridiculous, is n’t it?!
HOW TO CUT THE COST
What will “Federal Aid” at $60 a mile do towards building or maintaining such a road?!
Also ridiculous, is n’t it?!


[57]
POOR ROAD–Plodding, straining every muscle,
Mud and water to their knees,
Two miles an hour is rapid going,
Plowing through such roads (?) as these
GOOD ROAD–There is life and health and pleasure
In the sunshine and the air;
Two fast horses and a surrey
And - Good Roads Everywhere!


[58]
A BEAUTIFUL HIGHWAY IN GEORGIA

[59]

3 9015 02102 9759