On the other side, the principal spokesman for national highways was Editor E. J. Mehren of the Engineering News-Record. He outlined a plan for a national highway system of 50,000 miles consisting of five east-west routes and ten north-south routes, which would include about 2 percent of all U.S. roads. This system would give every State at least one through north-south route and one through east-west route and would cost about $1.25 billion. With congressional appropriations of $100 million per year, it would take 12½ years to complete. Mehren recom- mended that Congress set up a Federal Highway Commission to build, maintain, and operate the system.[1]
Still another plan was unveiled by James I. Blakslee, Fourth Assistant Postmaster General, for a Postal Motor Express System of 15,000 miles costing about $450 million which, he claimed, if authorized by Congress, would pay for itself out of surplus postal revenues.
The Joint Highway Congress, dominated by the American Automobile Association, the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, representatives of the emerging trucking industry, and other urban interests, passed a resolution favoring the Mehren plan for a national system. The outnumbered AASHO delegates then met in separate session, endorsed the Page bill and went on record as having “favored the making of all expenditures under the Federal-aid plan, the routes in the Federal system being selected by the various states and connected at the state lines by the Federal department in cases where connections are not made by the adjoining states.”[2]
Unsuccessful Attempt in Congress to Extend Federal Aid for 3 Years
The Page bill, sponsored by Senator Swanson of Virginia, was one of six highway measures introduced when Congress convened in December 1918. One of these, also sponsored by Swanson, would authorize the Postmaster General to set aside one-half of the net proceeds from the operation of motor parcel post for the improvement of a system of Federal motor express routes. Another, by Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, would establish a National Academy of Highway and Bridge Engineering in Washington. The others were Federal-aid bills similar to the Page bill providing for augmentation of the funds provided in the original Federal Aid Road Act for fiscal years 1920 and 1921 and an extension of Federal aid through fiscal year 1924.
This last authority was important, for it would insure the continuation of the policy of Federal assistance and enable the States to plan an orderly program. It was, however, opposed by those who were against Federal aid to highways, and they were successful in confining the funds authorized to fiscal years 1919, 1920, and 1921 and reducing the total amount to $200 million. In addition, the rural road advocates imposed a limit of $20,000 per mile on Federal participation.
In this form, the road legislation was added as a rider to the Post Office Appropriation Bill for 1920 (40 Stat 1252), along with another provision authorizing the Secretary of War to transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture “all available war material, equipment, and supplies not needed for the purposes of the War Department, but suitable for use in the improvement of highways, and that the same be distributed among the highway departments of the several states to be used on roads constructed in whole or in part by Federal aid. . . .”
When this measure reached the floor of the House, the $200 million appropriation encountered only token resistance. Congress clearly felt some obligation to help repair the damage inflicted on the State roads by war traffic. “The interstate character of traffic, as well as its excessive volume, render inequitable the placing of the cost burden on individual States.”[3] Also, there was consensus that public improvements would be needed to stimulate business and provide employment for returning veterans. Senator Swanson urged road improvements as a weapon for gaining a place for the United States in world markets. Good roads he said would save American producers $700 million annually and enable them to undersell foreign competitors.
The bill proposed that the term “rural post road” be construed to mean “any public road a major portion of which is now used, or can be used, or forms a connecting link not to exceed ten miles in length of any road or roads now or hereafter used for the transportation of the United States mails.” Unexpectedly, this clause aroused considerable opposition from the floor, and Senator Charles S. Thomas of Colorado declared that the bill “commits the United States to the improvement of every cattle trail, every cow path, and every right of way in the United States.” Senator James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York said, “I am convinced that any road that can be made suitable for carrying mail includes any and every road in the United States.”[4] This, of course, was exactly the effect desired by the Administration when it proposed the amendment. The new post road definition ended the pretense that Federal aid for highways rested even in part on Congress’ constitutional power to establish a postal system. The feeble opposition was unable to change the bill, and it became law on February 28, 1919.
Only a few days before the passage of the Post Office Appropriation Bill Senator Charles E. Townsend of Michigan introduced his own highway bill to establish a Federal Highway Commission of seven members, each to be paid $10,000 per year, with power to establish a Federal highway system of not less than two trunkline roads in each State, suitably connected to the trunklines of adjacent States and counties. This bill, although lost by adjournment, was an omen of the coming battle over Federal aid in the 66th Congress.[5]
Thomas H. MacDonald Selected to Head Bureau of Public Roads
While the Page bill was working its way through Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture was trying to fill the vacant position of Director of the Bureau of Public Roads. This was not an easy task, partly because of the prestige the position had acquired under Page and partly because of the meager salary of $4,500 Congress had allowed for the job, which was
102
- ↑ E. Mehren, A Suggested National Highway Policy and Plan, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 81, No. 25, Dec. 19, 1918, p. 1115, 1116.
- ↑ National Highway System Gets Strong Backing, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 81, No. 25, Dec. 19, 1918, p. 1108.
- ↑ S. R., supra, note 40, p. 10.
- ↑ 57 Cong. Rec 2427 (1919).
- ↑ Id., p. 3635.
