Mr. FINLEY. As I say, that thought passed through my mind; 1 am answering that particular question offhand, so to speak.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I presume that is the only way it can be answered, for this is a new question.

Mr. MADDEN. As a man of large interests and experience, what would you think of a plan under which the Federal Government laid down a code of general principles to which every State would be required to conform before the State could participate in any contribution from the Federal Treasury?

Mr. FINLEY. I do not know what you mean by "general principles" exactly. I think the Federal Government would have to establish a basis for its cooperation, a general basis.

Mr. MADDEN. That is the code of principles I speak of.

Mr. FINLEY. As to the particular roads that may be necessary, I think that will have to be left to joint determination by the Federal Government and the States. I should think, however, the Government would have to lay down some general principles upon which its financial cooperation will be given to the States.

Mr. MADDEN. The Congress of the United States within the last year passed a resolution providing for the election of the United States Senators by the people of the States, when that is ratified by the States. No State in the Union is required to vote for that resolution within any given period of time, but it has from now until eternity to vote for it if it wants to come within the provisions of this resolution. Suppose that now the Congress of the United States should enact a law under which it would say that it would contribute to the construction and maintenance of roads throughout the United States to a given percentage of the total cost of any road built along this line and that every State in the Union could come within the provisions of that condition whenever it pleased-if one State wanted to come in to-day it could do so and get the benefit of the condition imposed, and if it did not want to come in until to-morrow it could stay out, if it did not want to come in until 10 years from to-morrow it could come in then, but whenever it chose to come in it could do so, and the Government in the meantime would only be required to pay the percentage of the cost it laid down as a fundamental principle of roads actually built by the States that came in under the provisions of the law enacted. What would you think about some such scheme as that?

Mr. FINLEY. Well, that is a pretty long question, Mr. Madden. It is a very pertinent one. It strikes me that the Government should lay down the principles upon which it will cooperate, make a specific annual appropriation for the benefit of good roads, establish some unit upon which to distribute the appropriations among the States, and so apportion it, safeguarding the situation as far as possible to prevent any State availing itself unduly of the appropriation, with notice to other States not exercising the privilege of participation that unless they are prepared to make the development the money will be distributed among States where highway improvement is going on.

Mr. MADDEN. The assumption, however, upon which I base my question is that the Government, having once begun on a policy, would deny that policy forever and say there would be no injustice done to the States that did not conform to the plans laid down as

long as it did not expend any local money for the construction of roads.

The CHAIRMAN. And its proportional amount would revert to the Treasury as soon as they did not comply with the conditions.

Mr. FINLEY. Realizing the importance of the matter, I should think it might be a part of the Government's policy to encourage the States to enter upon the improvements.

Mr. MADDEN. What do you mean by encouragement? Do you mean that they ought to start out on a propaganda to induce the States?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes; I should say a propaganda to interest them and to advise them of the cooperation of the Government with them. I should think the Government should seek to encouarge the State which might be slow in that kind of development. I do not think the attitude of the Government under those circumstances should be passive, because I think the Government has a tremendous interest in this question. I am not arguing this from any State's rights point of view of any national point of view. I think this question involves the commerce of the country just as much as that carried by railroad and by boats. Commerce starts with the highway and it must move over the country highways.

Mr. MADDEN. As a man who has a great interest to conserve, would you favor any cooperation on the part of the Federal Government in the construction of roads except upon a plan which would in itself leave no opportunity whatever for the expenditure of money in a given locality and perhaps ultimately result in a public scandal?

Mr. FINLEY. I think the whole question will have to be very carefully considered. I think it is an economic question and that the Government should deal with it in that way and safeguard it from scandal. I think it is a question which, by reason of its comprehensiveness, will have to be dealt with broadly and in a most practical

way.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. And possibly any beginning in that way should be modest enough to leave room for extension?

Mr. FINLEY. I think so. I do not think it is a question to be settled in a day. I think the cooperation on the part of the Government ought to start in a way that admits of careful development.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The first legislation might well be modest Mr. FINLEY. I think so. I do not think you ought to put the matter within the zone of possible abuse.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Do you agree with Mr. Noble that maintenance is probably a greater question than that of construction?

Mr. FINLEY. We will have to construct before maintenance becomes necessary. I think there has been a woeful lack of maintenance. I live in the country myself, in Virginia, and I saw a very good road there deteriorating until maintenance was undertaken.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I think I see that all over the country. Mr. FINLEY. Yes. I think it is an extremely important matter. I consider it just as important as maintaining a railroad.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. If you took your section men off of your railroad for as long intervals as they cease work on the county roads it would not be safe to run a train over them, would it?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes. The roads are subjected to the same deteriorating influences, and one will go to pieces just as quickly as the other.

Senator SWANSON. Do you not think if the Federal Government would make a specific appropriation and divide it among the States, and say to a State, "If you will furnish a half of million dollars we will furnish an equal amount for road construction," that that would have an immense stimulus upon the construction of roads in each State that had this sum to aid them and add force and vigor to it?

Mr. FINLEY. I think it would be a very great stimulus. I speak of it as a stimulus, as I have no other way of determining whether a 50 per cent division is a fair proportion to be assumed by the Government.

Senator SWANSON. Do you not think that the States are good judges as to their needs when they will furnish half the money-as to the character of the roads they want?

Mr. FINLEY. I think so, but at the same time I think the Government should not be deprived of an opportunity of testing the judgment of the local people.

Senator SWANSON. The test would be to require the approval of the Federal Government?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes.

Senator SWANSON. You think that joint action of the Federal Government and the State in the selection of roads would give a guarantee as good as could be obtained that the road would be wisely selected and the money wisely spent?

Mr. FINLEY. I think so. I think that is the most practical way to proceed.

Senator SWANSON. And you think the initiation should be left with the State authorities with regard to their applications, and that they should be approved by the Federal Government?

Mr. FINLEY. By all means. I do not think you ought to destroy in any way local initiation. If you do I think it will be a setback for the good-road movement.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. In that connection, if a single governmental functionary had power to veto one proposition and accept another, would not that necessarily result in considerable abuse?

Mr. FINLEY. I think, Mr. Shackleford, you will have to approach the question with more confidence. I do not believe that we should allow it to go off on that point.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Why not let us assume that the State governments are all right, but why should so much veto power be limited to one man?

Mr. FINLEY. I think anybody who furnishes money to any enterprise ought to have some opportunity to look into it and determine its soundness. I am simply talking of principle. I think it holds in respect to this matter as well as in other similar matters.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. What element would enter into determining whether it was a sound proposition or not, from the standpoint of the Federal Government?

Mr. FINLEY. I think that would have to be determined from the principles of cooperation laid down by the Government in the first

instance.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Assuming that we are only building post roads for the transportation of mail, what element would enter into the functions of the Government agents as to whether one road would be built or not?

Mr. FINLEY. I assume, without having the benefit of absolute knowledge on the question, that the post-roads service is determined by the principles of service to the people in the area in which it is performed. I suppose these post roads are indicative of the situations in localities.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Then it would be fair to assume that wherever the mail is carried, traffic would be carried also?

Mr. FINLEY. Not in the same degree. I think the service is relative.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Would the Federal Government's part of the service be relative? For instance, here is a road that extends out from Roanoke, Va., to the north; here is one to the south, another to the east, and another to the west. On each of these roads the Government carries mail. Now, from the standpoint of the Government, what class would determine which one of these was more desirable than another? We will assume that each one is 20 miles long. Now, just put that in concrete form and assume that there are four roads running out of Roanoke, which are each 20 miles long and one carrier takes mail over each route. The Government is going to determine between these four which is the most desirable to construct as a post road. How would they arrive at the determination of that and how would they select one of those as against another.

Mr. FINLEY. I should think one thing would be the relative population involved.

Senator GRONNA. Would not the amount of traffic have something to do with that?

Mr. FINLEY. The amount of traffic and the productive capacity of the area.

Senator SWANSON. The fact that you would require the local authorities to furnish one-half of the money would be a balance wheelif you might use such an expression-if they were willing to pay that much toward the construction of the road, would it not?

Mr. FINLEY. I think so.

Senator SWANSON. Well, in the case mentioned by Mr. Shackleford, if there were four roads out of Roanoke and the Government could not take but 20 miles and improve to that extent, it could give 5 miles to each route the first year and satisfy all four to that extent, could it not?

Mr. FINLEY. I do not think I would make that kind of a distribution. Although the route might be but a small percentage of the mileage of the post routes in that locality, I should determine it upon the basis of the business carried over the route.

Senator SWANSON. There should be in the application passed on by the Federal authorities a general designation of the character of the road that the Federal authorities will aid?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes.

Senator SWANSON. One of general interest and one where certain. conditions and requirements are to show that it is one of general interest in order to obtain Federal money.

Mr. FINLEY. Yes.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Would you put that in a Federal statute?
Senator SWANSON. You could or could not.

Mr. FINLEY. You might have one route serving 70 per cent of the population of that locality.

Senator SWANSON. The main object, as I understand from you, for Federal aid is to aid the traffic of the country.

Mr. FINLEY: Yes; in other words, for the Government to cooperate to the extent of furnishing service along highways just as the railroad does. We do not seek the sparsely settled countries where there are no prospects of development. We build the railroad where we think it stands in the best relation to future development.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Havn't you and Jim Hill and some others built your roads into sparsely populated country and built up great civilization?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Something was said about population a while ago. Louisiana and Mississippi have about an equal population and about equal area, but Indiana has 2,300 mail routes and Mississippi has about 500. If you gave to the people of Mississippi an opportunity to come under some automatic general plan, as suggested by Mr. Madden, might they not put themselves within a Federal statute and increase the mileage of good roads in their State and thereby increase very largely the number of mail routes and also the number of transportation routes as well?

Mr. FINLEY. I do not know whether I understand your question. I do not want to be understood as suggesting that there should be a minimum population to be prescribed by the Government. If you have 50 people to the square mile in one State and only 30 in another I think the State of lesser population should have the same consideration in the principle of cooperation as the other State in the development of its good roads.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. What I was getting at is this: Suppose that the Federal Government were not to provide for the distribution of money among people, but among miles of road that would come up to a specified standard or something equally good?

Mr. FINLEY. I do not think it ought to be done that way.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. What is your objection to that?

Mr. FINLEY. I think that would be an academic way of getting at it. I think the material interests of each State should be considered. Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Is not that one?

Mr. FINLEY. That is one element.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. If the local people will have enough interest to provide the road, is it not, in the language of Senator Swanson, a guarantee that there is a demand for the road?

Mr. FINLEY. That may be. I think Congress ought to be careful in legislating upon this subject to protect what you might call the potential interests of the States.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Would it not be better protected by some selfoperating plan than by leaving it to some public functionary, who might give to Senator Swanson, who is very influential, a large area of road and might deny to a humble man like I am my part and carry it over into some other State? You do not do that in your business. Would it not be very dangerous to leave all of that to one functionary, with his liability to play favorites?

Mr. FINLEY. I am not considering it from that point of view. Senator SWANSON. You do not advocate a law making it payable to individuals, but for the roads and needs of the State?

Mr. FINLEY. That is exactly what I mean.