ever conclusions you have come to with reference to the matter, in your own way, and what aid you think the Federal Government should render, and how far it should go, and what concrete plan, if any, you have formed in your own mind.

Mr. FINLEY. I can not say, Mr. Chairman, that I have thought the question out to a conclusion. My occupation naturally puts me in a position to observe the condition of roads, the dependence of traffic on roads, or, as you might call them, highways. As I look upon transportation, I divide it into three elements-water transportation, rail transportation, and highway transportation. I have realized very strongly and very clearly the backwardness of the element of highway transportation. I have felt that it is the principal thing now standing in the way of the complete development of our agricultural sections. We talk about methods of improving farm culture, and the railroads, the Government, and many others are contributing to that, in money and effort, but by reason of the highway situation, the farmer whom we induce to produce large crops, or crops he has not heretofore produced, is in many cases without ways for properly marketing them.

We may suggest to him where he may find a market for what he has produced, but there is a great lack of facilities in many sections for his reaching the railroad station or some place from which he can get his produce to market. I have felt for some time there ought to be some more intelligent method for developing the country highways. There has been a slow development in that direction. We find along our railroad, for instance, very much more development in some localities than in others. Some counties have taken hold of the question very much more vigorously and comprehensively than other counties. At the same time, there seems to be a general movement toward improvement, and I have thought that there ought to be some way for expediting the movement.

While my first thought in the matter was that it could best be done by the smaller subdivisions, such as counties, and mainly the counties, I have reached the conclusion that there will have to be a more comprehensive method of development than that, otherwise it is going to be very slow and very unsatisfactory. I have hoped that some way could be found for better cooperation including the Federal Government; I do not mean to the extent of having the counties and States lay down on the Federal Government, for I believe that in order to get road development you will have to maintain a local interest.

The CHAIRMAN. You wish to utilize the Federal Government as a vitalizer for a locality?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes; and to cooperate in some substantial way. I believe you will find a very large percentage of the traffic of every locality moving over a relatively small road mileage, and in every locality there is an amount of main road which could be developed that would be a help to the general situation. I have had the thought that the Federal Government might in this case cooperate. I have always felt concerning road development that if all the money that has been spent on good roads through road taxes and otherwise had been effectively spent we would have had a better system of highways. We have not conserved our means for improving the roads;

12975-PT 1-13--2

in fact, we have had practically little business management. I have argued that the county could well afford to have an engineer who would undertake the construction of the main highways in a substantial way and look for materials within the county for constructing less substantially and maintaining the roads over which the lighter traffic of a county might move; in other words, develop a highway system as a railroad company develops a railroad.

The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty is with the enormous amount of roads in this country. It is more difficult than you find it with your railroad systems.

Mr. FINLEY. I appreciate that, but I was speaking in the sense of the principle of developing roads. For instance, the railroads have main lines over which a large part of the traffic moves, and there are branch lines feeding them with lighter service. One has to be maintained on a higher basis than the other. On one we have trains of higher speed and a greater density of traffic. I have felt that if the counties should have engineers they could avail themselves of all the materials in the county good for road building, using the best of them for the development of the main highways, and with split-log drags and lighter material could construct and maintain the rural roads over which the traffic was very much lighter.

I do not want to make a speech on this subject, but would like to say this: I have felt as to main highways, where probably 75 per cent of the traffic of the locality may move, and which may not be more than 25 or 30 per cent of the road mileage, the Federal Government might well cooperate in the improvement of such a highway and in the maintenance of it.

The CHAIRMAN. How are you going to make the line of demarcation as to the mileage that shall receive the Federal cooperation and that which shall not, where you get 75 per cent of the traffic? Who will make that designation?

Mr. FINLEY. That will have to originate in a local sense, because I do not think that the Federal Government could originate the proposition. I do not believe it could go into that feature without losing a great deal of time and incurring a large expense, but I think, after the situation has been developed by the State or some other political subdivision, the Federal Government might well take up the question for the purpose of determining its degree of cooperation.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you determined in your own mind what unit shall be established with which the Federal Government shall deal, if it deals at all?

Mr. FINLEY. The State, in the first instance, I should think-the State in turn dealing with its lesser units.

The CHAIRMAN. Your mind approaches the good-road question, as I understand you, with the desire for improved transportation facilities and an increased transportation activity. Is that right?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, sir. I want to get the highway, which I regard as one of the essential elements of transportation, developed in connection with rail and river transportation. I would like to see a system of intelligent development of that, because I think that is the trouble from which we are suffering.

The CHAIRMAN. If a plan could be worked out that is practicable (and I think we will all concede that this is highly desirable), is it

possible that highway improvement would take the place of rail feeders and electric lines to any extent?

Mr. FINLEY. Permit me to answer that in this way: I have maintained and I recall in the case of western North Carolina, which is a mountainous region through which our railroads run-with parties who have suggested that we run branch lines into certain localities from the main line, that that was not the real way to solve the question; that the solution was in the improvement of their highways into the shipping places.

The CHAIRMAN. Instead of building branch lines?

Mr. FINLEY. Instead of building branch lines, because they can get a more extensive highway system than they could a railway system under those circumstances. Branch lines built by railroads, as a rule, are not remunerative, and I do not believe the public would get as satisfactory service under those circumstances as they would from the development of their highway system.

The CHAIRMAN. If a practicable plan were developed and worked out and enacted, satisfying the railroads generally as being practicable, would the representatives of the railroads cooperate to the extent of very low rates in hauling material?

Mr. FINLEY. We do that now, where it is hauled at the expense of or for account of the State or county.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the railroad representatives would ever reach the point of making financial contributions to the general fund for the highway improvement that would develop their particular lines?

Mr. FINLEY. I do no think they could do that properly.

The CHAIRMAN. That you do not think would be practicable? Mr. FINLEY. I do not think we could use the capital of the railroads for that purpose, because there is such a responsibility always on them for developing their own facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. If you were going to put a certain amount into the building of branch lines, and you concluded that you would get the same results by the construction of certain highways, would you not be justified in putting into highway improvement 25 per cent of the amount you would have to put in to build a branch line?

Mr. FINLEY. I do not think we could issue securities covering that kind of an investment; we could not borrow money on that basis. The CHAIRMAN. Could you not charge it up to operating expenses? Mr. FINLEY. We could not do that.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Considering the large amount of money they had to pay in taxes, would they not in that way contribute to the road building?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes; we do.

The CHAIRMAN. Do not the railroads, to a certain extent, make contributions for road building?

Mr. FINLEY. I do not know the extent. However, I do not see any proper way for the railroad to make that kind of an expenditure. We cooperate in every way we can. We run good-roads trains and do everything we can to advance public interest in good roads, and when material is hauled for the county or State, we make special rates on it, as far as the law will permit us to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that is general in the railroad world? For instance, take the 250,000 miles of railroads in the United States,

do you think they have reached the stage of development you have, for instance?

Ι

Mr. FINLEY. I do not like to say. I can state for our own system that we have tried to be broad about it and we do what we can. will be glad to answer any further questions as far as I may be able to do so intelligently.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is practicable to work out any general plan to which the States, as units, must conform, other than the conditions that might be attached to such Federal aid as might be rendered by the Government?

Mr. FINLEY. I have heard your examination of Mr. Noble on this question. I have not determined the units upon which the development might be made or the cooperation of the Government secured. I think it all ought to be done upon the basis of the material interests involved. I think that that will have to be left to the discretion of some governmental agency. As I understand you do in connection with river improvements, I do not believe you can determine the particular developments to be undertaken by act of Congress.

The question is very much more complex than that of river development.

The CHAIRMAN. The designation of roads would have to be left to the local or State interests?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes; I think it should originate with the State. I think also there should be some study of the question by the Federal Government; I mean some test of the soundness of the judgment of the State, by reason of the fact that the Federal Government is asked for cooperation.

The CHAIRMAN. How can you do that practically without building up a very large bureau in the Federal Government in order to get the espionage or to insure that conditions imposed by the Federal Government are being carried out?

Mr. FINLEY. It is very hard to say in advance what the organization should be for that purpose. I do not believe that it would be necessary to have as large an organization as one might theoretically deem to be necessary. I believe a system of general inspection, relieved of the details of original development, could be made to work satisfactorily. Excuse me for referring to the railroads. We have an organization for our roadway work. In that organization we have not a great number of men outside of the men who actually do the work on the track; we have the men who supervise and on whose judgment we rely for recommendation. They are not numerous, considering the territory involved. We have a superintendent who operates say a division of some 300 miles, more in some instances; he has a roadmaster under him. We have also an engineer of maintenance of way. We find as a rule we can reach conclusions intelligently on their recommendations.

The CHAIRMAN. But every day every mile of your track is passed over by some one directly inspecting it?

Mr. FINLEY. Not so frequently by the superintendent.

The CHAIRMAN. No; but he has the means of information that will come right to him.

Mr. FINLEY. Yes. I will admit there are difficulties, but I am trying to show that there is a character of supervision that can be given by the Federal Government which would not call for so large a

force as one might imagine in considering the subject academically. I think it could be systematized in a way in which it could be handled satisfactorily. Of course I do not mean to say, without knowledge of the present force of the Government in respect to good roads, that it could be done with the present force.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you had 1,100,000 miles of road, which I understand is the present mileage now utilized by the rural routes; how are you going to have an espionage over that mileage without an enormous bureau?

Mr. FINLEY. I suggested that Government cooperation might be given in connection with roads representing some 25 or 30 per cent of road mileage in localities, but over which probably 85 or 90 per cent of the traffic would move. I do not believe that the Government should go into cooperation with the States as to every mile of road in the States.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think the Government should have the right to make a designation of certain roads and say that it will cooperate in the construction and maintenance of these roads (a certain mileage in each State), but what it does it must do in a general way.

Mr. FINLEY. But I think it will have to determine definitely with the State the extent to which the Government is going to give its cooperation; that will necessarily have to be based on some road, and that road will have to be determined by the material interests of the locality.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Do you keep in mind the only purpose for which we can make Federal expenditures is to construct and maintain post roads?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes; I realize that. While not using that term I had it in mind.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. In your railroad organizations you have your section boss. Could not the Postmaster General, or some other functionary here, rely to some extent for a report of condition of roads upon the rural carrier or traveling inspector?

Mr. FINLEY. I must say that when Mr. Noble was asked that question that thought passed through my mind. I do not see why the Government could not have a report from the rural carriers.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the rural carriers reported the road was not in good condition, and the local representatives said that it was. In that case an inspector would have to come in and determine.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The roadmaster, so to speak, would go in there. Mr. FINLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. And if he was not satisfied with that then the superintendent would come in. That would only be in cases where there were controversies.

Mr. FINLEY. That is it. I do not mean to say the Government should always await such a report as that. There would have to be some kind of scouting done for the purpose of finding out the condition of the roads.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think this would be the condition: That the rural carrier traveling the road would be one of the most critical men who would report the condition if it should be out of order?