As illustrating how this would work, Kansas could build one mile of road, Missouri, Virginia and Kentucky could build four-fifths of a mile, Georgia could build seven-tenths of a mile, and Texas, with her 234 counties, could build only twofifths of a mile in each county.

How soon could we get a system of roads, or any roads worth while, if such a foolish plan as this were adopted?

And this is the most conservative and probably the wisest unit suggested by those favoring "National Aid.”

If the county were made the unit, as favored by some, the 3,000 counties in the United States would each receive an average of $16,666, and if economically expended each county could build about one and one-half miles of road. If the railroad depot were made the "hub," as some advocate, from which the roads shall radiate, just one depot in each county would get one and one-half miles of road from each appropriation of $50,000,000.

If either the State or county should be adopted as the unit, and the national appropriations turned over to them, we shall simply be repeating on a larger scale, the ineffectual and criminal waste exemplified in River and Harbor legislation, with its attendant scandals. As the rivers have not been made navigable, neither will roads be built under any such method.

Even were such schemes feasible in other respects, the purpose of dividing responsibility and effecting co-operation between national and State or county officials is no more practicable or possible than it would be to divide and co-operate in the improvement and navigation of the rivers. As the rivers are but national highways under national supervision, so must the national roads be subject to national jurisdiction, just as the State and county road systems must be under the supervision of State and county authorities.

It would be just as logical to subject the navigable rivers to State and county navigation laws as it would be to turn the national highways over to such control.

Then what is the wise and proper thing to do?

The answer is for the Government to build, supervise and maintain its own system, whether large or small, of national highways.

When it shall have built 30.000 miles of roads, as suggested by attached map, it will have but little over one per cent of the roads of the country. There will remain 99 per cent for the States and counties to build and maintain.

A glance at this tentative map will indicate that if the suggested system should be adopted, each State would get an average of two national highways, one each way across the State, each connecting with and forming a part of a general system.

Would not this be of greater value to the State-of more direct value to a greater number of people-than would the stub-end of a road in each county, even if such stub-ends should be built?

This system of 30,000 miles can be built at an average cost of $10,000 per mile, or $300,000,000.

This is $110,000,000 less than the States and counties have already issued in road bonds.

It is $100,000,000 less than the cost of the Panama Canal. It is only equal to the ANNUAL appropriations for the army and navy.

It is about equal to the ANNUAL appropriations for pensions and public buildings.

It is only one-half the sum already appropriated to rivers and harbors.

It is not one-third the sum given to the railroads.

Build this, or some similar system, and let the State and county systems connect with it. It will add value to the farm lands many times its cost. It will give employment to an army of idle men. It will furnish a ready market for farm products and manufactured utensils. It will decrease the cost of transportation, and consequently the cost of living. It will benefit both the producer and the consumer. Like the gentle dews of Heaven, its blessings will fall upon all the people, both in town, city and country.

Build it, and an era of prosperity will follow such as the world has not known. It will be of greater direct benefit to a greater number of people than any material project ever conceived in the mind of man.

CHAPTER XX.

The Townsend Bill.

Synopsis of Statement Made by J. M. Lowe, June 18, 1920, Before the Committee of Postoffice and Post Roads

of the United States Senate.

"The School of Experience ought to teach us much on the subject before us for consideration. National highways, to be built and maintained by the General Government, is far from being a new or startling proposition. It is as old as the Government itself. The Constitutional Convention of 1783 had just been adjourned, and the Government organized thereunder was in a formative condition when this question arose, and a measure was passed and approved by Mr. Jefferson in 1806, establishing the Old National or Cumberland Road, beginning at Cumberland, Maryland, and extending to the Ohio River at Wheeling; and by various acts of Congress, extending westward until it reached the Mississippi River opposite St. Louis. This road was built and maintained by the General Government until 1837.

mes

"In 1824 this question became a National issue, and John Quincy Adams was elected President upon this issue. Immediately following such election, President Monroe sent a sage to Congress, suggesting the appointment of a Commission of three to select and lay out a system of National Highways, and to make its report to the next Congress. Mr. Monroe was so well pleased with the character of the men who agreed to serve upon that commission that he sent a special message to the Senate, congratulating the country upon the men chosen for that Commission.

"Senator Benton from Missouri proposed an amendment to the bill, providing for said Commission, and suggesting that the Congress itself make the selection of such system, because, he said, he feared that the politicians would 'surround' the Commissioners, and influence them to lay out roads favorable to certain local interests rather than to the general interests of the country.

"His amendment was defeated, and the Bill was passed, practically unanimously, there being but six votes in the Senate against it. At the following session of Congress, the Commissioners made their report. Mr. Benton, in criticizing the report, showed that 'the expected had happened.'