In my opinion, Congress may also seek to promote the general welfare by such a modification of an apportionment based on mileage of post roads as will tend to result in the improvement of those roads over which traffic is heaviest. Many factors contribute to differences in traffic density. One of these, and perhaps the only one that it is practicable to take into consideration without making a detailed investigation, is population.

Considering, therefore, on the one hand, the benefits to the Government in the improvement of post roads and, on the other hand, the promotion of the general welfare through benefiting the largest number of people, I am unable to suggest a method of apportionment that would be more equitable than that of apportioning such amounts as may be appropriated by Congress first in the ratio which the mileage of star routes and rural-delivery routes of each State shall bear to the total mileage of such routes in the United States, and, secondly, in the ratio that the population of each State shall bear to the total population of the United States as shown by the last census.

As I said, in substance, in the hearing before the joint committee, I believe that it will be to the advantage of the Government to embark on the policy of Federal aid conservatively and, as I may say, feel its way. The amount generally discussed at the hearing-$25,000,000-would seem to be adequate for the initial appropriation. Without giving an excessive amount to any one State under the system of apportionment suggested it would give enough to each State to enable the general policy to be tested in a substantial way under the varying conditions of the several States.

In determining the proportion that Federal expenditures in each State should bear to the local expenditures, I believe it will be wise to make the proportion such as will leave a considerable amount of the cost of road improvement to be defrayed by the States or their civil subdivisions and yet large enough to be of substantial benefit and so to stimulate local expenditures as to insure vigorous prosecution of the work. In my opinion, the provision that one-half of the cost shall be defrayed from the Federal appropriation would accomplish these results.

While appreciating the very great importance of road maintenance the present need for road improvement is so great that I venture to suggest that, for the immediate future, at least, not more than 10 per cent of the amount allotted to any State shall be used for maintenance.

As bearing on the point raised in the hearing that there might be favoritism shown in the selection of the specific roads to be improved within a given State, I suggest, on further reflection, that so far as the Federal Government is concerned, it should deal only with the State and not with any subdivision and that responsibility for the selection of the roads to be improved should be made to rest on some officer or officers of the State government. Then, if the selection made shall not be pleasing to the people of the State they will have it in their power to replace the officer or officers who may be responsible. In my opinion, the director of the office of public roads, after satisfying himself that a road recommended for improvement by State authority is a post road, within the meaning of the law, should not go into the question of the relative desirability of improving it. He should, however, have absolute and final authority to pass on the plans of the proposed improvement before authorizing the expenditure of any amount of the Federal appropriation on it.

In the interest of simplifying the dealings of the Federal Government with the States in this matter, it must be apparent that uniform organization and legislation in all of the States would be desirable. I take the liberty of suggesting, therefore, that the director of the office of public roads be authorized to submit to the governor of each State the draft of a uniform law containing such provisions as would tend to simplify cooperation between the State and Federal Government and to bring about economy in administration and efficiency of supervision.

The present lack of a greater mileage of improved country highways in the United States is, I believe, largely the result of inadequate supervision of the expenditures of money and labor that have been made on them. I believe, therefore, that in the administration of any legislation that may be enacted by Congress too much care can not be taken to insure intelligent supervision of all work to which the Federal Government may contribute. It may be well to provide by law that before Federal aid shall be given to any project the Director of the Office of Public Roads shall be satisfied that all parts of the work will be carried out under adequate and competent supervision. This would

greatly lessen the amount of supervision and inspection that would have to be done directly by the Office of Public Roads. With competent supervision over each project a single inspector from the Office of Public Roads should, I believe, be able to exercise such general supervision as might be required as to the projects in a large extent of territory.

I think that, in line with the suggestion made during the hearing before the joint committee the mail carriers using roads that had been improved might be required to report on their condition at stated intervals-say, quarterly— those reports to be forwarded through the proper channel to the Director of the Office of Public Roads, who, when a report indicated that maintenance on any road had fallen below standard, could direct the inspector in whose territory it might be to make an inspection and send in a report to the Office of Public Roads, sending a duplicate copy to the proper officer of the State.

In addition to being satisfied that work is being done properly, I believe that the Federal Government should be advised as to the expenditure of all money contributed in aid of road improvement within the States. I take the liberty of suggesting, therefore, that such legislation as may be enacted should contain a provision for the auditing of all accounts by details made from the office of the proper auditor of the United States Treasury Department. I believe that by properly systematizing this work it could be done by relatively a small crganization.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE W. COOLEY.

The CHAIRMAN. Kindly state your name, age, residence, and occupation.

Mr. COOLEY. Age, 68; engineer of the Highway Commission of the State of Minnesota.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you, in your own way, make such suggestions as you think would be of importance to us in the study of the subject of Federal aid to good roads?

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, during the past 5 or 10 years I have looked on this matter from the standpoint of my own State-Minnesota. It has occurred to me that a national organization could be founded on about the same line as our State organization. For instance, we have a highway commission appointed by the governor, consisting of three members. That commission is nonpartisan and a nonpaid commission. The commission at the present time has the distribution of a fund of about $340,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN. How is that fund raised?

Mr. COOLEY. By a tax levy of a quarter of a mill, in addition to which we have 5 per cent on the sales of Government lands and the interest on our internal improvement land fund, which gives us this year for distribution about $350,000. The State authorizes the distribution of that money among the different counties, of which we have 86, on a basis to be determined practically by the members of the highway commission. The law requires we shall take into consideration the area of the county, the population, the facilities for construction of highways, and the amount generally expended by the counties. It is an arbitrary division, and we experimented one time about five years ago-with a division of the funds on a specific basis; that is, based partly on the road mileage, partly on the valuation, partly on the population, and then an arbitrary factor of necessity. We found that after we had figured that out very carefully, it came to just about the amount that we had figured on as giving to the counties, without reference to these specific factors.

The CHAIRMAN. On what basis of distribution-simply acreage and population?

12975-PT 1—13——3

Mr. COOLEY. Acreage, population, road mileage, etc.
The CHAIRMAN. Those were the factors?

Mr. COOLEY. Those were the principal factors.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you allow an equal amount for each?

Mr. COOLEY. No. I have forgotten now just what percentage we allowed to each, but I think we gave the greater factor to the road mileage. I have forgotten just exactly what the factors were. That division we make is made every year, the money is set aside at a certain time of the year, and each county, in order to avail itself of it, must put up just as much money; that is, if we give to a county $7,500 or $4,000, that county must during the year spend the same amount on what are called or designated State roads.

The CHAIRMAN. Who designates them?

Mr. COOLEY. The county commissioners of each county have the right to designate any road as a State road.

The CHAIRMAN. Subject to your approval?

Mr. COOLEY. No, sir; not under the present law, but we are trying to change the law and make it subject to the approval of the highway commission. At present we have about 79,000 miles of road, of which about half, I think, are post roads, and of that 79,000 miles, I think, we have about from 8 to 10 per cent that are improved. We require that all money expended on State roads shall be met by an equal amount of the county funds, and that the counties bind themselves to keep them in good condition wherever State money is expended.

The CHAIRMAN. Subject to whose determination?

Mr. COOLEY. Subject to the determination of the highway commission.

The CHAIRMAN. How do the counties bind themselves to do that? Mr. COOLEY. By resolutions of the county board.

Mr. MADDEN. Then, what if they failed to do it?

Mr. COOLEY. If they fail to do it, we remember that at the next allotment and give them a reduced amount. That is one factor we are using now in the distribution of this fund, the care which the counties take of their roads, and we receive quite frequently reports from the rural carriers, and whenever there is a complaint made that is sure to reach us through the postmaster of the office through which he serves. In that way we have a pretty general oversight over all of our road matters, and it has occurred to me that a national commission might be organized somewhat on the same basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your idea that there ought to be a national commission?

Mr. COOLEY. That is my idea; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you say the national commission should be made up?

Mr. COOLEY. Well, in my own way I figured out that it should consist of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the Office of Public Roads, at least one engineer, and two other citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. These men ought to be under pay?

Mr. COOLEY. Well, I suppose some of them could not serve without pay. The duties of the engineer of a commission of that kind would be somewhat onerous, and I should judge he would have to be paid, and I should judge the two civilian members of the board would have to be compensated for their services.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the commission ought to have a sufficient force to inspect the roads to which the Government contributed?

Mr. COOLEY. Not to make a thorough inspection. I think that might very safely be left to the highway commissions of the different States. Of course we have more information than the national commission would have; for instance, I have in my employ now about 50 engineers, giving one to every two counties in the State approximately-some have three and some one.

The CHAIRMAN. You have 50 engineers for an expenditure of $300,000 a year?

Mr. COOLEY. No, sir. We expend with our force now somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,500,000.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you said your commission had jurisdiction over only $350,000.

Mr. COOLEY. We have the jurisdiction over the expenditure of all the money. The counties spend somewhere in the neighborhood of one million and a quarter each year outside of the State roads. The CHAIRMAN. You have jurisdiction over them?

Mr. COOLEY. I have jurisdiction over them, so far as drawing the plans and specifications and acceptance of the work is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. And you have 50 engineers for an expenditure of two million and a half, all told?

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If the Federal Government expends $250,000,000, how many men would it require?

Mr. COOLEY. Possibly one for each State. That is a matter which is difficult to determine just now. It depends largely on the highway commissions in the different States. We are furnishing that work now, and we might be, to a certain extent, agents of the Government's commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you recommend that State commissions be made special agents of the Federal Government?

Mr. COOLEY. To a certain extent; yes, sir. I think that the State commissions should submit to the national commission a proposition for the location of certain roads on which national money should be expended. I do not think it would be advisable to expend the national fund over all the roads in the county or in a State.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand under your system the counties themselves designate what roads they will improve?

Mr. COOLEY. The counties have heretofore designated what roads should be improved; yes, sir. We have just passed an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing the legislature to levy a tax of a mill, which will give a fund in 1914 of about a million and a third, somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,300,000. The allotment to some of the counties then will be more than some of these counties can raise, so we propose to modify our requirements by allowing some counties, under certain conditons, to expend only 20, 30, 40, and up to 50 per cent, the State paying the balance. At the présent time and during the years 1911 and 1912 the State paid 50 per cent. Before that they paid one-third.

Mr. MADDEN. What is your idea as to the total cost of construction and maintenance that should be paid by the Federal Government?

Mr. COOLEY. I have always had an idea that about 50 per cent would be right, and that is the idea that the people in the Western States generally have. During the past 10 or 15 years, while we have been conducting quite an extensive propaganda, the people have been gradually led up to the idea that the Government would some day contribute about 50 per cent of the cost of the road.

Mr. MADDEN. What led them to think 50 per cent was a proper ratio?

Mr. COOLEY. I could not say as to that.

Mr. MADDEN. How does it happen everybody agrees on 50 per cent?

Mr. COOLEY. It has been generally talked of, and that is all. We have not anything to base it on, and you might as well call it 30, 40, or 50.

Mr. LEE. What character of roads are you building?

Mr. COOLEY. Building earth roads, mostly. Where we improve, we improve with gravel, and occasionally with macadam. Now we are going into the concrete business. We are building three roads of concrete now, and we have plans made ready to build in the spring six more roads, aggregating, possibly, 120 miles. Mr. MADDEN. What does it cost to build the roads?

Mr. COOLEY. Building a dirt road depends, of course, on the amount of earth removed. It would cost from $500 to $1,000. Our gravel roads cost from $500 to $2,000, depending on the distance we have to haul the material. Our macadam roads cost from $5,000 to $6,000 a mile.

Mr. MADDEN. How do you keep them in repair?

Mr. COOLEY. We have adopted a system there of what we call road patrols. We hire a man for about $50 or $55 a month, and give him a section of 5, 7, 8, or 10 miles of road, and keep him on the job all the time during the open season, with a wheelbarrow and a kit of tools. We require towns and counties to provide a team and wagon whenever necessary to haul gravel and haul a drag, or anything of that kind. When the season closed last fall we had about 40 of those men under pay, and they were doing excellent work.

The CHAIRMAN. They were given from 5 to 10 miles each, and I understood you to say you had 79,000 miles of road.

Mr. COOLEY. Yes; but they are not all improved roads.

The CHAIRMAN. Ten per cent of the 79,000 miles is improved? Mr. COOLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. This only applies to improved roads?

Mr. COOLEY. Only applies to improved roads and they must be post roads.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. How many miles of improved roads have you? Mr. COOLEY. We figure about 10 per cent, which would amount to about 8,000 miles.

Mr. MADDEN. Ten miles to a man would be 400 miles.

Mr. COOLEY. Yes; they would not begin to cover the mileage of the improved roads.

Senator SWANSON. Did you go abroad and spend some months there last summer for the Minnesota Commission?

Mr. COOLEY. I did about three years ago.