We now appropriate a special fund for trunk lines the great arteries and ask nothing in return for the construction of these roads or their upkeep from the abutting owners or the towns through which they run. The construction of the roads is accomplished by bonding. For this upkeep there is a specific appropriation added to the money secured from licensing automobiles. The patrol system for the care of these roads has been adopted by the State.

In addition to the trunk-line system we have a general appropriation for intertown roads leading on to these trunk lines, and that appropriation is shared in by the towns on the basis that any town having a grand levy of $1,250,000 or less receives seven-eighths of the expense of the construction from the State, and any town having a grand levy of more than $1,250,000 receives three-fourths of the expense. In other words, the financially strong towns do not receive as much as the towns that are weak. It is the under dog in the fight.

My own impression is that the upkeep of the trunk lines-in reply to your fourth question-should be provided for the same as the construction. There should be no tax for maintenance of the trunk lines. On the intertown roads I believe practically the same distribution of money should be made as for their construction.

In so far as Federal supervision is concerned, I think there should be a man appointed by the Government who would be the Federal agent in each State. He should not be given charge or control of the work in any State where the work is now under the charge of a commission or commissioner, but he should see to it that the work is performed as outlined under the specification which should be provided by the department. (In fact, there should be no specification drawn that did not require the sanction of the Federal Government through its officials in charge of said work before an appropriation is made.) Specifications should be standardized, whether for a graded road, a stone road, or bithulithic treatment-in fact, for everything, whether running a road scraper on a road or the highest attainment to which the science of road building has gone. Federal supervisors should see that the specifications governing the contract are carried out by visiting the sections from time to time and notify the officials in charge of the work of any omissions on the part of the contractors. However, these are suggestions of details only.

I have given you this information as briefly as I could with the limited time at my disposal.

To sum up briefly:

I should have the appropriation divided between the trunk-line roads and the intertown roads, or among the trunk lines, intertown connecting roads, and the feeder roads.

I would have the basis of award the wealth of the town when it comes to a division of the second class, or intertown roads, as arranged for under the Connecticut plan.

I would have the trunk-line roads taken care of and constructed under the same basis of award.

I would have Federal supervision in each State.

I would have this work done under the Office of Public Roads, under the Secretary of Agriculture, for I believe this whole matter will come closer to pulsing the hearts of the people through the Agricultural Department than any other department.

FLORIDA.

WILLIAM M. CORRY, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GADSDEN COUNTY, QUINCY.

(1) I think the Government should cooperate with the several States in building roads in order to get them established.

(2) The rural free delivery mileage in each State and county should be computed annually and a fixed sum appropriated per mile by the United States Government for maintaining such roads, the State and county to supplement the Government fund and appropriate as much additional as may be required to keep the road in a good state of preservation.

(3) I think the work should be confined to public highways that have rural free delivery routes established, these to be known as post roads, as distinct from other county roads.

(4) I think there should be two funds, one known as construction, the other as maintenance, the money to be used from each fund at the outset in creating the road, and after a road has been established further appropriations to come out of the maintenance fund, and the construction account to be used for laying out new roads.

(5) I think that the Government supervision and inspection should be exercised over all roads so constructed. The Government employs the best experts, is familiar with all kinds of modern road machinery, and the cooperation and supervision of the Federal inspectors would be of great help to the State and county authorities.

(6) Above are my personal views, and will lay your communication before my associates on the board of county commissioners. Will then endeavor to prepare a statement with the aid of our county road superintendent.

ILLINOIS.

A. N. JOHNSON, STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER, SPRINGFIELD.

(1) It has been the general impression of those interested in highway work with whom I have come in contact in the past few years, since Federal aid has been agitated, that the gravest danger would be that such a plan would become a "pork barrel" proposition, for there is no question but that much agitation on this subject has been with this end in view. For this reason I know that in many conventions there has been a hesitancy to give favorable expression to the general idea of Federal aid until some definite plan, which would clearly indicate how it would work out, had been formulated. I am of the opinion that it would be necessary to have a well organized State highway department in each State, with whom the Government would deal directly; that Federal aid should be confined to a certain definite system of roads, if granted at all; that the maintenance of these roads should be at the expense of the Government when once constructed; that the specifications for the construction should be drawn up in consultation with the State Department, who doubtless will be able to give valuable aid that would take into account local conditions; that the Government give only general

supervision to the work sufficient only to insure itself as to the general value of the construction undertaken; that the detailed supervision could more cheaply be left to the State highway departments of the various States.

(2) The proportion to be paid to the Federal Government should be from one-third to one-half of the total cost. I believe the sentiment in this State is such as to provide for the State's share.

(3) The roads on which Federal aid should be granted should be those important through routes constituting between 1 and 2 per cent of the total mileage. It probably will be found that 1 per cent will give a system of roads that would make a very comprehensive scheme possible.

(4) The initial appropriation for construction should be as already outlined. In order to have the maintenance, which is perhaps more important even than first construction, carried on systematically and uniformly it should be under one control-that of the Governmentand if to be under the control of the Government should be paid for entirely at the expense of the Government.

(5) This has been answered above.

(6) The formation of a national bureau of highways under some one of the existing departments. This bureau may be composed of a commission with a chief engineer and such other assistants as seem necessary. Doubtless there would be a division of the country and resident division engineers appointed as the work progressed. Within their territory the division engineers should have complete supervision of both construction and maintenance. I think a`mistake is made where the maintenance and construction departments are separated. After the National Government, in consultation with the various State departments, has decided upon the routes, general specifications should be drawn up by the national commission and these submitted to the various State departments who should be asked to submit detailed specifications which, after final approval, would be the specifications for specific sections of the roads to be constructed. The contracts would be let by the State highway departments and the supervision furnished by them, the Government to have traveling inspectors to keep general watch of the work in progress of construction, the State highway departments to make specific reports of progress, giving such data as the national department would require for its information in checking up costs and methods of construction. As fast as certain definite pieces of work are completed they should be gone over by Government inspectors, together with the State department's representative, this inspector to have authority to accept work on behalf of the Government when there should be due to be paid into the State treasury, to be applied to the cost of construction, such proportion of the cost as is to be borne by the Government. The Government should provide for the upkeep of the various pieces of road. At first, when only a few miles of detached pieces of road have been constructed, it is evident that the system of maintenance by the Government would doubtless be excessive in cost and somewhat cumbersome; but as more and more road is built the efficiency of the maintenance department would increase and should eventually be brought to a minimum. It is quite possible that it would be wise, when there were but a few miles of road to be maintained in a given community, to allow for arrange

ments to be made between the Government department and the State department whereby the State department would, under instructions from the Government office, care for the maintenance of the Government roads until there was a sufficient mileage to warrant more detailed supervision by Government inspectors, but in any event avoid on the part of the Government separating the construction and maintenance departments.

I realize that in the above brief outline only a few of the essential points have been touched upon, but doubtless you will receive other communications touching upon other points, so that your committee will in the end be in possession of fairly complete information, whereas if each of us should wait until we had given the matter more thorough study, so as to permit of a report in further detail, there would perhaps be little time left for your committee to give the matter the consideration it would desire.

HOMER J. TICE, MEMBER STATE LEGISLATURE, GREENVIEW.

I will not undertake to answer the questions in detail, but will make one general suggestion in the line of my experience gained in investigating this question in the State of Illinois.

I do not favor Federal aid for public-road construction, but do favor the Federal Government aiding in maintaining post roads. It occurs to me that any attempt to amalgamate Federal and State aid will bring about a conflict of authority both in construction and maintenance, not only as to authority but responsibility for maintaining the highways after once builded.

I believe at the present time the proper position for the Federal Government to occupy is to aid in the maintaining of post roads— that is, rural-route roads. If so much per mile could be appropriated for the improving and maintaining of these post roads, conditioned upon the State and county appropriating a like sum, the work to be done under the supervision of the State highway commission, that the Federal Government would have gone as far as is now practicable.

Furthermore, I would not make this Federal appropriation applicable to any State not having a State highway commission under which the funds appropriated may be expended. A State that is not sufficiently interested in its highways to establish a State highway department and have it in active operation is not worthy of Federal aid.

For the Federal Government to build great trunk lines of highways might be all right as an example, but for practical purposes the per cent of benefit would be very small compared with the amount of outlay.

I happen to be a member of the joint legislative committee of Illinois which has had this subject under consideration for the past two years and will soon make their report to the Illinois General Assembly. We will also introduce a bill providing for a State highway department and a complete rewriting, recodifying, and amending of the Illinois road laws.

We provide in our bill that all State-aid roads shall be constructed by the State and counties participating in the State-aid fund, the State to pay 50 per cent and the county 50 per cent of

the cost; after a road is completed the State to have absolute authority over all such roads and to maintain them at State expense. While we would be very glad to have Federal aid, and it might relieve our burden somewhat, yet I believe in the long run it would be more satisfactory that the Federal authorities should not participate in any way in the constructing and maintaining of public highways other than is herein suggested.

We have in Illinois 2,800 rural routes, covering about 50,000 miles of our public highways. If the Federal Government should appropriate a certain sum per mile, or rather a certain sum for each route, to be used where most needed, and particularly for the purpose of draining the highways, a greater number of people would be benefited and more permanent results obtained which would be of benefit to every community in every State than through any other system.

INDIANA.

C. A. KENYON, PRESIDENT INDIANA GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION, INDIAN

APOLIS.

Your question No. 1 is: "As to a general plan upon which this Federal aid should be given."

In my opinion (a) the Nation should have a national highway department; (b) there are a few great trunk lines that are of such vast importance that I think the Nation should construct and maintain without the aid of the States. Aside from these routes, Federal aid to the extent of one-half the cost of construction and upkeep should be granted, provided, however, that such aid should not be extended to roads other than post and interstate roads. A comprehensive definition of what shall constitute such roads, and a tribunal to decide the question should be provided. Probably a limit of mileage of such roads that should be built in each State (say not to exceed 2 per cent of the roads of the State) would prevent extravagance. Experiences in the various States having highway commissions and State aid indicate that it is not safe to depend exclusively upon local authorities to maintain adequately roads built with the aid of State money. Witness the collapse of the "Cumberland Road" after it was turned over to the various States.

Your question No. 2 is: "To what extent the plan should require the State or local authorities to contribute to the amount of money appropriated; and to what extent you think your State or local authorities would be willing to cooperate with the Federal Govern

Answer. In my opinion the Federal Government should make it a condition precedent to granting State aid, that the State should pay one-half the cost of construction and adequate maintenance, the national highway department to decide what is adequate maintenance, otherwise an extended line of road might lose one-half its value by conflicting State opinions of what is adequate maintenance. I am satisfied that the people of my State would be willing to cooperate with the Federal Government upon this plan.