Promoting the Road During a War

Federal Highway Council

On April 8, 1919, backers of a national highway system met in Chicago to form the Federal Highway Council.  The council’s goal was a national system of interstate highways and a Federal Highway Commission to build it.  Participants elected S. M. Williams as chairman.  The advisory committee for the council included representatives of many organizations:

One of the first things the council will give its attention to is the passage of the Townsend bill now pending in Congress, which provides for an appropriation of $425,000,000 for highways.  More than 720 organizations have endorsed this bill which provides for a Federal highway commission to control highways and highway construction, and the Highway Industries Association has received 365 acceptances of membership for the Federal Highway Council which will endeavor to co-ordinate the efforts for the national highway development.

Some opposition has developed to the Townsend bill also, there being some objection on the grounds that the bill would take away the control of road building entirely from the states and that the work of the various organizations would be superseded by national control.  Opponents of the bill claim to have the support of President Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture Houston, and the highway officials of nineteen states.  [“Road Council to Push Townsend Bill,” Motor Age, April 17, 1919, page 15]

The group was an outgrowth of the Joint Highway Congress held in December 1918.  An account in Highway Engineer and Contractor explained:

Since then this Federal plan has received the endorsement of 425 Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade throughout the country.  It has also received the endorsement of 350 other organizations, such as Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs, Traveling Men’s Associations, and all of the national and state good roads organizations.

The nation-wide demand for a Federal Highway Commission and a national system of highways, as recognized in the recommendations of the Chicago Highway Congress, and later covered by the Townsend Bill, introduced in the last session of Congress, would assure the country of a definite national highway plan. 

State highway officials, representing 40 states, have gone on record strongly in favor of a Federal Highway Commission and a national system of highways.

Williams said:

The time is here when we should not only consider the cost of highway development, but along with the cost we should consider and determine the value in dollars and cents of the highway to the community it serves or the country at large, if national highways.  If we do that, the cost of any highway properly designed and constructed to carry the traffic upon it, with a safe margin for increased traffic, will fall into insignificance.  Unfortunately we have not, as a country, awakened to the fact that our highways have an earning capacity which can only be increased with the improvement of the highways.  [“Federal Highway Commission,” Highway Engineer and Contractor, May 1919, pages 53-54]

The question, a second article in Highway Engineer and Contractor explained, was whether BPR was “efficient, unbiased and so formed as to achieve the objects desired.”  If so, a separate commission was not needed, “but if it can be shown that the formation of a Federal Highway Commission will hasten the construction of good highways, and that through its operation better roads will be constructed for less money in less time, then the Commission would be advisable.”

The magazine printed Secretary Houston’s views expressed on the subject in response to a May 2 inquiry from a city chamber of commerce:

I have been unable to see the need for the creation of a separate Federal highway commission or the wisdom of substituting for the present co-operative program a plan which would commit or limit the Federal Government to the construction of two federally owned and maintained trunk lines in each state of the Union.

He added that under the Federal-aid legislation, “there is no special obstacle, so far as I can see, to the construction in the different states of the Union of those roads which serve the greatest economic needs.”  He pointed out that, “In the first place, the definition of the kind of roads that can be constructed has been greatly broadened and, in the second place, the limitation on the Federal contribution for any one road has been increased from $10,000 to $20,000 a mile.”

Moreover, under the 1916 Act, as amended in February 1919, the machinery was in place to implement the law.  He called BPR “one of the largest and most effective organizations of its kind in the world,” which worked with the 48 State highway departments, “the two agencies working in close co-operation.”  The States, which initiate projects, had planned State highway systems.  “Of course, in formulating these systems, the engineers gave due regard to interstate connections, that is, to roads connecting the system of one state with that of another, and it is difficult to see why, as progress is made, the construction of through roads will not follow as a matter of course.”

Nearly $300 million was now available from the Federal treasury.  Given the amount already available, he wrote, “It seems scarcely likely . . . that the Congress, in the light of the financial situation, will make additional large appropriations, and it would be impossible, without creating many complications, to divert the existing appropriations from the purposes and plans already under way under the co-operative arrangements with the states.”

Secretary Houston concluded:

The road construction movement is growing very rapidly.  The Federal Aid Road Act has done much to promote it.  It has stimulated financial aid and has caused many state legislatures to create central highway departments.  Experience has brought about amendments to the law and helpful changes in administration.  Comprehensive road programs have been inaugurated.  They are being pushed vigorously.  They will result, in a shorter time than most people imagine, not only in a network of good substantial roads in the various states of the Union, but also in the requisite interstate highways.

Why at this stage introduce complications and embarrassments?  Why should not the friends of the movement for roads to serve the people co-operate?  It is difficult for me to see why all who are animated by high public spirit in their thinking concerning highways should not co-operate in the development of present programs and in the perfection of the existing processes and machinery, instead of attempting to overthrow them.  I believe that many of those who are backing the proposed change do not know the facts and are not aware of existing conditions and possibilities.  I believe also their proposal stands very little chance of being enacted into law.

The magazine followed Secretary Houston’s letter with a short commentary by Dr. H. M. Rowe, former president of AAA and current member of its Good Roads Board, “which will devote much time to federal highway legislation.”  Rowe explained:

Highways should be considered in the same class of public activity as railways, waterways, merchant marine, the national banking system and, in fact, any of the great distinctly national undertakings.  It seems a self-evident proposition that the building of a national system of highways will form an enterprise of such magnitude and such complexity as to put it entirely beyond the sphere of a single bureau or other subdivision of an executive department and if, therefore, it be considered in the class of these great national enterprises I have named, we should naturally expect to see the same kind of administrative machinery established for highways.

He cited examples, such as federalized railroads under the Director-General, who is not subject to the control of any cabinet officer,” and, when free, under the independent Interstate Commerce Commission; the merchant marine industry was managed by the Shipping Board and the Emergency Fleet Corporation, “both functioning apart from executive departments”; and the banking system by the Federal Reserve Board “instead of a bureau of the Treasury Department”:

There is no existing executive department which could legitimately take over the entire task of building a National Highway System.  It might be contended that the Department of Agriculture should do the job because of the agricultural interests affected by highways, but immediately the counter-contention might be made that the War Department should build the system because of the military and national needs of the nation.  The Post Office Department might very logically claim that its rural delivery and parcel post service should entitle it to control.  The Department of the Interior being almost entirely a public works department, might contend that a constructive engineering task should fall in its domain.

In the end, all these possible claims lead to the “realization that highways are of such an all-embracing and of such general importance as to make it impracticable to entrust the task as a minor undertaking to any single government department.  A commission would consider the needs of all of the departments.”

Rowe concluded:

From the standpoint of directness, of responsibility, timeliness of action and comprehensiveness of knowledge, a commission devoting its whole time to the one single task could not fail to accomplish far greater results than would be possible through the medium of a cabinet officer who would be devoting the greater part of his time and attention to matters wholly foreign to highways.  It would seem that the commission plan is unassailable.  [“Federal Highway Commission Bill,” Highway Engineer and Contractor, June 1919, pages 35-37]

The magazine also reported that Senator Townsend had held a conference in Washington on
May 20 to consider the bill he had introduced in the 65th Congress to stimulate discussion.  It had prompted much constructive thought about how the bill could be adjusted to meet all future needs:

Constructive suggestions have been brought out to such an extent as to assure a comprehensive and well-balanced measure which if enacted into law will result in a national system of highways, built and maintained by the Federal Government under the supervision of a commission dealing exclusively with this one phrase of national activity.

Participants in the meeting included Roy Chapin and Pyke Johnson of the Highways Committee of the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce; A. R. Hirst, president of AASHO and George P. Coleman, chairman of its executive committee; S. M. Williams and Henry G. Shirley of the Highway Industries Association; J. E. Pennybacker, formerly of BPR, now Director of Roads with AAA and George C. Diehl, chairman of AAA’s Good Roads Board; W. O. Rutherford of the Motor and Accessory Manufacturers’ Association; and the top executive of State highway departments from Alabama, Maine, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

In addition, the magazine reprinted the resolution that the Chamber of Commerce of the United States adopted during its annual meeting on May 1, 1919, endorsing the national highway plan and policy of the Joint Highway Congress.  The resolution endorsed a Federal Highway Commission to work with “any Federal agency that may have functions of articulating rail, trolley, water and highway transportation.”  Congress should approve “substantial appropriations” for construction of the national system and its maintenance.  “Expenditure of funds should be permitted only for highways which are of permanent type having thorough drainage, substantial foundations, sufficient width and a capacity for traffic which will be reasonably adequate for future needs.”  [Ibid, page 37]

D.A.R.’s 1919 Congress

During D.A.R. April 1919 annual congress in Washington, Mrs. Van Brunt, chairman of the National Old Trails Road Committee, was “unable to be present.”  Mrs. George Edward George, the committee’s second vice-chairman, reported on its activities:

Reports this year of the work of the National Old Trails are not very numerous, but some of those that have been received are very excellent and bespeak the interest in and loyalty to this beautiful and worthy undertaking of preserving to posterity the historic trails and roads of our own beloved country.  Many and unforeseen things have arisen in the past two years to cause work on the old trails to be side-tracked for the time being – urgent demand for immediate war-relief work along various lines, and later a country-wide visitation of the influenza epidemic that completely paralyzed the efforts of entire communities for weeks and even months.  But for all that, courage was undaunted in many directions, keeping alive the hope of those to whom this work is distinctly paramount.

One of the most vital tasks facing the country was “the re-absorption of war labor with peace industries, and one method of solving that problem seems to be universally thought of.  It is the building of national roads”:

All of us have a vivid recollection of last winter’s freight blockage and the failure of the railroads to relieve the situation.  We must build highways; that has been one of the lesson [sic] of this war.  Men from every State in the Union meet in Chicago today and tomorrow to strive to formulate a plan for a national roads system.

She was referring to the Chicago meeting to create the Federal Highway Council.

The Daughters of the American Revolution had pledged their support to the National Old Trails Road, and were keeping that pledge:

This road, carved out of the wilderness by our fathers (our road) is not only the most practical road proposed, but has the sacredness that anything made by those who have gone on beyond the touch of our hands must always have for us.

This is our chance to preserve it, to make it our first great National Highway.  We can do it if we – 100,000 earnest, patriotic women – will only stand together.  Will you do it?  [Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Continental Congress of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, April 14-19, 1919, pages 95-96]

The society adopted a resolution directing the National Old Trails Committee to work to include footpaths at the side of such roads for the safety of pedestrians.  The Baltimore Sun explained:

The resolution calls attention to the fact that recently several school children were run down by an unidentified motorist while on their way to school near Towson, one of the children being killed and two others seriously injured.  The tragedy would not have occurred, the resolution recited, had a footpath for the use of pedestrians been provided in building the road.  [“D.A.R. Not to Change:  Amendment to Reduce Representation Beaten,” The Baltimore Sun, April 18, 1919, page 3]

Construction in Illinois and Indiana

As if to drive home the point about the effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program, BPR’s magazine, Public Roads, reported in its July 1919 issue that:

In June the record of Federal-aid statements approved surpassed that of all previous months in the numbers of projects, the mileage involved, the estimated cost of the roads to be built and the amount of Federal aid allowed.  This is also true in regard to the record of the project statements for which agreements were signed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

During June, BPR considered 239 projects, with 133 new statements approved, 60 agreements executed, covering 1,426.84 miles at an estimated cost of $25,611,314.99 (Federal share:  $11,725,500.61).  The June statements approved “bring the total amount of Federal aid applied for up to $54,654,984.44, almost $5,000,000 in excess of the amount which would have been available up to the close of the fiscal year 1920 under the original Federal aid law.”

The article illustrated the point by citing two projects in Illinois.  One, project No. 8, involved construction of the East St. Louis-Springfield Highway (the portion from Granite City to Springfield).  The other, project No. 9, “will undoubtedly hold the record for length and cost for some time to come [and was] of unusual interest aside from its great length and cost”:

It contemplates, after the lapse of nearly a century, the completion of the Old National Road, extending from the Potomac to the Mississippi, which already has been largely improved as far west as the Indiana line.  The Illinois improvement will extend from East St. Louis across the State to the Indiana line, traversing St. Clair, Madison, Bond, Fayette, Effingham, Cumberland, and Clark Counties.

The proposed type of surface is monolithic brick and concrete pavement, the average cost of which is about $30,000 per mile.  The proposed improvement includes also the construction of 40 bridge structures of lengths ranging from 22 feet to 300 feet.  At present the highway is generally an unimproved earth road which becomes nearly impassable at certain seasons of the year.  There are, however, near some of the villages short stretches of macadam pavement, generally in very poor condition.  The local traffic consists of approximately 60 trucks, 700 motor vehicles, and 50 horse-drawn vehicles per day, to which is added during the summer months a through traffic of about 20 trucks, and 200 passenger motor vehicles.

The article summarized the history of the highway, dating to legislation that President Thomas Jefferson signed on March 29, 1806, through the final appropriation for construction purposes in 1838.  The article did not mention that the National Road was part of the National Old Trails Road.

Indiana’s participation in the Federal-aid highway program had been delayed by court challenges to State law.  However, that issue had been resolved, and the Indiana State Highway Commission was able to begin operations.  “The first evidence of this fact was in June, when six project statements were submitted to the Bureau of Public Roads which were approved before the end of the month”:

Two of the projects are very large ones, among the largest projects so far submitted from any State.  The larger of the two is for 35.3 miles of road in Hancock and Henry Counties, and has an estimated cost of $1,419,928, or about $40,225 a mile.  The other is for 35.1 miles in Vigo, Clay, and Putnam Counties, and its estimated cost is $1,394,016.80, or $39,713 a mile . . . .  These two projects are for stretches of the Old National Road in Indiana, the former lying between Indianapolis and Richmond and the latter between Terre Haute and Indianapolis.  A third project for a stretch of this road submitted is for 14.7 miles between Terre Haute and Indianapolis, in Hendricks County, estimated to cost $610.606.  These three projects will practically carry the rebuilding of the Old National Road across Indiana, and with the big Illinois project will about complete the reconstruction of that road from St. Louis to the Ohio-Indiana line.  [“June a Record-Breaking Month for Federal-Aid Allotments,” Public Roads, July 1919, pages 19-21]

State Exposition

Dr. S. M. Johnson of New Mexico was one of the good roads movement’s prominent promoters. Perhaps his most famous contribution to the cause was the founding of the transcontinental Lee Highway as a southern counterpart to the Lincoln Highway.  (Although Dr. Johnson had been involved with other southern routes, the Lee Highway Association was not formed until December 3, 1919.)

In mid-1919, he promoted the idea of establishing in Washington, D.C., “a great national permanent exposition to be composed of 48 State exhibits in which would be shown the individual resources of each of the States, its history, traditions, institutions and its local characteristics.”  The idea was not new, “but it took the stirring days of war to kindle the national spirit to a full appreciation of the wonderful possibilities of this mutual undertaking”:

The State boundaries would be clearly marked, while the main avenues would correspond to the great transcontinental highways and would be clearly marked accordingly.  Thus the “Lincoln Highway,” the “National Old Trails,” “the Bankhead National Highway,” and other great cross-continental roads would be featured and their locations would become better known to those who visit the exposition . . . .

The proposed birdseye view of the national domain will help in familiarizing visitors to the National Capital with the geography, the political units of Government, the avenues of communication, the topography and the vast productive power of the land that saved the world from starvation and democracy from destruction.  [“Highway Plan for States Exposition,” American Motorist, June 1919, page 21]

Although many of Dr. Johnson’s creative ideas were adopted, this one was not.  (In addition to the Lee Highway, Dr. Johnson was largely responsible for the Zero Milestone installed in the Ellipse south of the White House; was the good roads speaker during the U.S. Army’s first transcontinental motor-truck convoy in 1919; and played a key role in promoting construction of Arlington Memorial Bridge connecting the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.)

Westgard’s View

In June 1919, the Kansas City Star featured an article about the National Old Trails Road.  It began:

Many motorists who have noticed the red, white and blue markers along certain roads in the vicinity of Kansas City fail to appreciate their significance.  They blaze the route of the National Old Trails Road across the continent from Baltimore to Los Angeles.

The article quoted A. L. Westgard, a pioneer pathfinder of the early automobile era and then director of transcontinental highways of the National Highways Association:

The National Old Trails Road gets its name from following old historic trails, more or less closely, all the way across the continent.  Thus it follows the National Pike, the first highway built by the nation, along a route reminiscent of the history of Washington, Braddock and of the French and Indian wars, from Washington or Baltimore to St. Louis by way of Cumberland, Wheeling, Columbus and Indianapolis.  From St. Louis it follows the Boone Lick Road, named after the doughty Daniel Boone, to Kansas City.  From Kansas City to Santa Fe it traces the famous Santa Fe Trail, gory with the blood of the pioneer hunters, trappers and traders who between 1872 and 1882, when the completed railroad caused its abandonment, plodded their weary way across the plains . . . .

From Santa Fe to California it trails the paths of Spanish conquistadors and the indomitable padres, who brought the gospel to the Pueblos.  The length of this route is 3,030 miles from Washington to Los Angeles.  Everything considered, it is the most scenic and by far the most historic route, besides offering the flavor of a trip into a foreign land on account of the Mexican population and numerous interesting tribes of Indians who in New Mexico and Arizona dwell contiguous to the route.

Hard surfaced roads will be found as far as Terra Haute in a continuous ribbon.  While most of the balance of the route is financed for improvement, it is, aside from occasional stretches of macadam, a dragged dirt road good in dry weather.  Substantial bridges and culverts are found along the entire route, even in sparsely settled sections of the Southwest and it is well sign posted.  This route is provided with excellent hotel accommodations at the [sic] most of the natural night stops.  Though open for traffic practically the entire year, except in January, February and March, the best time to travel this route is in the early autumn, leaving the East between September 1 and October 7.

[Reprinted as “National Old Trails a Historic Route,” The Baltimore Sun, June 22, 1919,
page 10]

Promoting the Federal Role

Despite disappointing results in the short third session of the 65th Congress, the Highway Industries Association and other advocates had high hopes for the 66th Congress.  It would meet from May 19 to November 19, 1919; December 1, 1919, to June 20, 1920; and December 1, 1920, to June 5, 1921.

As a result of the mid-term elections in November 1918, Republicans controlled both Houses of the 66th Congress.  Senator Townsend was chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.  Born August 15, 1856, in Jackson County, Michigan, he was admitted to the Jackson bar to practice law in 1895.  After serving in the House of Representatives from 1903, he was elected by the State legislature to join the Senate in 1911 and had won reelection in 1916.  He was the sponsor of the bill most heavily favored by supporters of the Federal Highway Commission.
Representative Thomas B. Dunn was chairman of the House Committee on Roads.  Born on March 16, 1853, in Rhode Island, he had lived for many years in Rochester, New York.  He was a businessman who had served in the State legislature and as State Treasurer before winning election to the House in 1912.  He joined the Committee on Roads upon its creation in 1913.  In 1916, he had been one of the leading opponents of the Federal Aid Road Act.  In New York, he had been “an advocate of the general proposition connected with the question of good roads” and had been associated with good-roads legislation.  However, he said he was troubled by the 1916 bill because there was, “to my mind, a very great difference between Federal aid for roads and Federal construction of roads.”  The Federal-aid funds the bill authorized would be a “gift distribution” to the States, after which “control of the same is lost to the Federal authorities.” 

He might have supported “an initial system of Federal trunk-line roads,” but “it does not appear to me that it is an opportune time to enact the measure now reported.”  He explained his concern about the timing:

[The] subject of good roads is not a vital question at the present time nor is it one that has to be solved immediately.  This Chamber is supposed to be the financial office as well as the legal office of this Government.  We are expected to be careful of our own expenditures and to be rather more than careful about voting away the money of other people.

If instead of a minus Treasury we had a plus Treasury, if we had large revenues that provided for a surplus that could be fairly divided, if we were not confronted with complications throughout the world that may call for large appropriations to be made by this Congress, to be expended for what might be called involuntary expenditures, it possibly might be a proper time to consider this measure; but in view of the fact that we have little or no surplus, that we are already considering increasing our present internal taxation, I believe this entire subject should be deferred until matters of much graver importance are definitely settled.  Believing as I do that this is not a good business measure to present at this time I can not, under the circumstances, justify myself in supporting the same.  [“Rural Post Roads,” Congressional Record-House, January 24, 1916, page 1470; mini-biographies from “New Chairman in 66th Congress Whose Committees Will Handle National Roads Legislation,” American Motorist, June 1919, page 30]

With these new chairmen in place, advocates for a Federal Highway Commission and a national highway system had every reason to be optimistic about congressional action.  The new leader for BPR was another matter.

Although AASHO and the Highway Industries Association disagreed on the Nation's highway needs, they agreed on the need for a strong new leader of BPR.  An editorial in Engineering News-Record for December 26, 1918, foresaw "a new era in highway work," one in which "an engineer of vision and strength" was essential for BPR, even though a Federal Highway Commission "should be created soon." The editorial stated, “Lack of vision and of sympathy with new conditions have been the chief deficiencies in the bureau in the immediate past.”

AASHO recommended Thomas H. MacDonald for the job.  Born in Leadville, Colorado, in 1881, MacDonald moved as a child with his family to Iowa in 1884.  He became State Highway Engineer in 1907 and Chief Engineer of the Iowa State Highway Commission when it was formed in 1913.  In this role, he worked with the small AASHO committee that drafted the Federal-aid bill that Senator Bankhead introduced and became the model for the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916.  He had been an ally of Logan Page and was dedicated to the Federal-aid concept.

In a letter to Secretary Houston on March 20, 1919, MacDonald said he wanted to ensure he would be able to make adjustments to "assist in changing the present attitude of criticism toward the Department and to insure the cordial co-operation of the state highway officials . . . ."  The changes were decentralization of responsibilities to BPR's multi-State District Engineers; increased salaries for the District Engineers to retain their services; adoption of the "most liberal policy possible" in interpreting existing laws to get construction underway rapidly; and provision for an advisory committee, to be selected by AASHO, to help improve Federal-State relations.  MacDonald also conditioned his move to Washington on an increase in the position’s salary of $4,500 a year.

These conditions being acceptable, Secretary Houston appointed MacDonald on April 1, 1919, "engineer in immediate charge of the work under the Federal-aid road act."  When the salary of $6,000 was approved, he was appointed "Chief of Bureau" on July 1, 1919.  [“Thomas H. MacDonald” in Clearly Vicious as a Matter of Policy on this Website at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/hwyhist02.cfm]

With his firm commitment to the Federal-aid concept, MacDonald would be a strong opponent of the concept of a federally constructed national highway system.

Further, the rapid spread of Federal-aid highway projects around the country raised concerns among State highway officials that adoption of the Townsend bill would end the Federal-aid funds they were receiving.  Aware of this concern, Senator Townsend said late in 1919:

The object of the bill introduced by me is to establish and maintain a national system of highways according to a national plan connecting the different states of the union, and affording an example of proper highway construction, which will be beneficial to the states.  The bill does not in any manner injuriously affect existing law, in fact it provides that the commission created under it shall have charge of the Federal Aid Law, and shall make reports annually to the Congress as to what is being accomplished under existing law, and to make such recommendations for the future as the operation of the law and its results seem to be necessary.  The two systems of road building are separate and distinct, except that they are under control of the same Federal Commission.  The appropriations, however, cannot be mingled and the results will be known and properly appraised by the people from time to time.  If the present Federal Aid Law proves satisfactory, it will as a matter of course, be continued, and probably enlarged.  If the proven results are not satisfactory, that law will be discontinued.  And what I say of the Federal Aid Law will be true of the bill now pending before the Senate.  The commission appointed under the Law, it may safely be presumed, will be high grade men, representing different sections of the country, and their life-work will be to serve the people by furnishing the best possible highway transportation facilities.  [“To Strengthen Present Plan of Federal Aid for National Highways,” Highway Engineer and Contractor, November 1919, page 52]

As these comments implied, 1919 had seemed to be the year of the Federal Highway Commission, but it was not to be, as Bruce E. Seely explained in Building the American Highway System:

Quarrels among the various backers of the Townsend bill over who should lead the campaign hampered genuine coordination of the public relations effort.  A more serious problem was the continuance of federal aid, for even highway engineers who supported a national commission hesitated to jeopardize the money already appropriated.  Congress in 1919 certainly had no desire to consider a plan that would not take effect for two years.  So in spite of warnings that waiting until federal aid expired in 1921 would jeopardize their chances, most supporters of the commission favored such a delay.  As a result, the sense of urgency about a national highway commission palpable in early 1919 was frittered away.  [Seely, Bruce E., Building the American Highway System:  Engineers as Policy Makers, Temple University Press, 1987, page 53]

True Principles

Advocates of the National Highway Commission understood that in the short session ending early in 1919, Congress had not had time to consider the idea.  They had high hopes for the session that began December 1, 1919.

Victoria Faber Stevenson summarized the situation in her “American Highways” entry in the November 1919 issue of Sinclair’s Magazine.  At one time, she began, the main road problem was the “farmer trying to drive a balky mule over an impassable road!”  Farmers were the main road users; the average city man “felt justified in eliminating the subject from his worries.”  That view had changed:

Today the question of good roads is everybody’s business.  This change of attitude has come about because more than six million automobiles travel the roads, carrying their owners to work or about their business.  Every motor-driven passenger car and truck has been a recruiting agent in assembling volunteers in the campaign for better highways.  As a result the people of the United States have come to realize that the condition of the highways has a vital bearing upon the food supply, and also upon general industrial prosperity and national security in times of peril.

State and local governments understood the need:

Since the armistice was signed various state legislatures have voted such bond issues as fifty, sixty and seventy-five million dollars for road work.  Counties, too, have voted many millions of dollars for like purposes, St. Louis County, Minn., alone obtaining seven and a half million dollars in this way.  It has been calculated that in all a fund of more than a billion dollars has been appropriated by such methods.

As the funds become available, “road finances will permit highway officials of many states to plan for the future.”  BPR reported that “practically every state is planning a continuous system of connecting roads.”  Under the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 as supplemented by the Post Office Appropriation Act of 1919, the amount of funds available to BPR was “the largest ever established by any government for such internal improvements.”  With $125 million dollars now available, “the Bureau of Public Roads estimated that it has in September a working fund of about one hundred-sixty-nine million dollars and a surety of one hundred millions more next July.”

Although funds at all levels were abundant, more was wanted.  The activity of Federal agencies, “efforts of state organizations and the energy which road and automobile associations have been persistently exerting for national road improvement, have had a marked influence on the Congress of the United States.”  With the next session about to open, more than 40 highway bills had been introduced:

Senator Wesley Jones of Washington has presented a bill providing for the creation of a Department of Public Works which would have charge of the nation’s road building.  Senator Morris Shepherd of Texas advocates the building of a military highway along the southwestern border.  The idea of surveying and investigating the needs of military roads is embodied in several proposals to Congress as well as the actual construction of highways for military coast defense.  Representative Robison of Kentucky [sic, John M. Robsion] has asked that Federal aid funds be increased a billion dollars, while Representative [Scott] Ferris of Oklahoma would add four hundred millions for Federal aid work.  Several of the Rocky Mountain states favor national legislation allowing them to sell portions of their public lands to supply funds for highways.

Perhaps the most important highway bill now in Congress is the measure introduced by Senator Charles E. Townsend of Michigan.  This proposed legislation has attracted nation wide attention because it provides for a national highway system of such type as will meet the demands of the future as well as the present.  It would create a Federal Highway Commission of five members appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.  Upon this Commission would rest the scheduling of the national highway system and its management.  It would, in addition, supervise the appropriation of four hundred twenty-five million dollars set aside for the project.

No highway bill has ever been considered more seriously than this one throughout the whole country, because of the enthusiasm for a national highway system

Stevenson pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce of the United States supported the Townsend Bill, while many State highway officials supported the bill through the efforts of Associated Highways of America.  AAA was “doing much to arouse the interest of its branch organizations in this cause”:

Members of the American Association of State Highway Officials are strong in their endorsement of a highway system which would connect all states.  Nevertheless many of these road officials believe it would be a serious mistake to discontinue Federal aid.

With the farmer in mind, the National Grange “has an especial interest in improving highways leading to city markets; and as no industry could continue prosperous without agricultural prosperity it is difficult to understand how anyone could remain indifferent.”  In addition, the Federal Highway Council, “which has its headquarters in Washington, is represented throughout the United States by large organizations of national importance as well as by commercial clubs, rotary clubs, good road associations and others united in the interests of transportation and traveling in the various states.  Many of the members are anxious to see Federal aid extended beyond 1921 when the appropriation ceases.”

Stevenson concluded:

American wealth is being applied to her highways as never before; American roads are being constructed more substantially, and public sentiment is demanding that further progress be made by adopting a national highway system.  [Stevenson, Victoria Faber, “America’s Road Program,” Sinclair’s Magazine, November 1919, pages 38-42]

Senator Townsend revised his bill for 1920 and renamed it the National Highway Act, but its prospects were dim.  As Professor Seely wrote:

Townsend reintroduced his bill in January 1920, only to have debates over the peace treaty and League of Nations delay committee hearings until May.  Publicity efforts resumed with the Firestone Ship-by-Truck transcontinental caravan and an accompanying program of speakers, films, tours, advertising, and handbook.  But with a presidential election upcoming, Townsend saw little prospect of pushing the bill to the floor in 1920.  [Seely, page 53]

(May 17-22, 1920, was National Ship by Truck-Good Roads Week.  Initiated by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, the week featured promotional activities around the country, including parades of trucks, speeches, a motion picture titled “Ship by Truck,” and a student essay contest.  [“To Hold National Good Roads Week,” Better Roads and Streets, May 1920, page 224; “’Ship By Truck – Good Roads Week,” The Motor Truck, May 1920, pages 202, 203])

Judge Lowe continued to advocate for the Federal Highway Commission, as reflected in his bulletin of February 25, 1920:

It matters little who first suggested a system of National Highways, but it matters much whether the prevailing sentiment shall be translated into such system now, or whether it shall be permitted to fade out by inaction, as it did after winning in a National election in 1824 – and it matters much more whether or not this is the true solution of this question. May we not appropriate the following from Henry Ford’s page in the Dearborn Independent, as confirmatory of the propaganda and accomplishments of this association:

“What kills propaganda is the obvious purpose behind it.  One little admixture of self-interest and your effort is wasted.”

That has been the foundation principle upon which this Association has stood from the beginning.  It has no axe to grind, no selfish interest to serve, no salaried officers, no one trying to make this a stepping stone to political preferment or to “something better.”  We make no appeal for support in order that some one may be personally benefited thereby; nor has this Association any selfish interest behind it to sustain it, nor has it received one dollar knowingly, from any selfish source, unless the contributions of those along its line be thus classified; and this can not be truthfully claimed, because our work has always included the general good of the whole country.

The man or Association bottomed on a great truth “need not worry about the indifference of the multitude; let them tie their fortunes to this fact.  In due time it will find its place.  Agreement does not make facts.  But facts make agreement.  People who don’t agree with the truth get bumped by it.  It is not our place to do the bumping – the truth takes care of that.”

The only legitimate propaganda along all lines of material and spiritual endeavor is the ascertainment and establishment of true principles.  A true solution of any worthwhile question is as permanent as the fixed stars.  Winter, nor indifference, will not freeze it; Summer, nor heated opposition, will not melt it; apathetic Pessimism will not destroy it.  It may be neglected for ages, and men may abuse and falsify it, indeed may smother it under mountains of error and misconception, but bye and bye truth, ever working unweariedly, will dig itself out, and rise to the top.  No falsehood, however insignificant, did it rise Heaven-high and cover the earth, but truth, sooner or later, will sweep it down, for so it is written in the doombook of God.  During the march of the Ages, the advocates of Truth have been immolated, but this did not destroy Truth.

If this Association is founded upon true principles it will deserve to live in history.  This principle was declared in 1806 when the Cumberland – (National Road) now a section of the National Old Trails Road – was established by Act of Congress, and was reaffirmed by repeated acts of Congress extending it to St. Louis, and finally, by the adoption of a bill in 1824 extending it to Santa Fe, a capital of a foreign State.  Thus the National Old Trails Road is not only National in character, but it is the first and only road in the United States established by Act of Congress as a National Road throughout its length.  No need for additional legislation is necessary to make it so.  This can not be said of any other road sought to be promoted in the United States.

All that remains to be done is to build the road.  We prepared a Bill to this effect, and had it introduced in Congress in 1913, but it was refused upon the ground that it applied to a single road, and not to any general system of roads.  Whereupon, we drew up a Bill establishing a general system of National Highways, covering some 32,000 miles.  This was the first measure of this character brought forward since 1824, but public sentiment was not yet ready for it.  Four years ago Congress adopted what is known as the “Federal Aid Law,” the direct result of the agitation for National Roads, and which provides for the co-operation of the Federal Government with the States in building roads.  This was recognition of the authority and duty of the General Government to apply Federal funds to road building.  Its obvious defects are, that it mixes both money and management, neither of which are defensible.

And now we have the pending Townsend Bill, and other bills, recognizing the long established principle of a General system of National Highways, to be built and maintained by the General Government, and this is the principle to which we have always adhered.  It took three generations to devise a plan to build the Panama Canal.  We were wise enough finally to adopt it as a National undertaking, and placed the responsibility for its construction upon a single individual, and we shall finally come to some practicable, business-like plan in building roads.

Any National system adopted will serve as, and take the place of, State and County roads in all the States through which they run, thus relieving such States, Counties, etc., of the cost of their construction and maintenance; and will leave for construction more than any State or County is likely to build.  The National road will serve as an object lesson in all the States; and the State roads, by a well defined system, can connect with such National System, and the County and Township roads with such State systems, all under separate supervision, thus establishing a United system of Good Roads Everywhere.  By such system we can get “through roads,” roads that begin and go somewhere.  By such system we will get “State” and “County seat roads,” and by such system we will get “Main Market roads,” “radial roads,” “roads from farm to the market,” etc., and we can bring this about in no other way.  What kind of a system of Railways would we have if the “feeder roads” had been built before the trunk lines?  J.M.L.

P.S – Since the above was written, this office has received the following special from Harrisburg, Pa.;  “Only one large Pennsylvania highway is open to automobile traffic through its length, the State Highway Department announced today.  That road is the National Pike, which passes through Washington, Pa., Brownsville and Uniontown.”

The leading editorial in the Ohio Motorist in last October number said:  “Now try to cross Ohio on a continuous hard-surfaced road and see what you will find.  There is but one, and that is the Old National Road.”

Also from the State Highway Board of Illinois:  “Entire Old National Road across this State is under contract.”  At a cost of about $5,000,000.  This alone is more than one-half the amount expended on any other road in the United States during 1919.

The Chicago Herald-Examiner of January 25, after mentioning all the trans-continental roads, says:  “The best all-year route is the National Old Trails Road from Washington, D.C., and continued westerly through Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City and Pueblo, penetrating the desert of New Mexico and Arizona into Los Angeles. Practically the entire stretch from Terre Haute to St. Louis will be closed, however, during summer on account of road construction.”

J. M. Lowe, President
National Old Trails Road Association

Judge Lowe’s last paragraph citing Good Roads Everywhere was using terms Charles Henry Davis had been using throughout the 1910s in his crusade for national highways.

The Road in 1920

While Congress considered the future of Federal road activities, State and local officials continued to improve sections of the National Old Trails Road.

The Arizona State Highway Department had issued a call in January 1920 for bids for construction of the State Highway through Petrified Forest.  The segment was known as Section 3, Holbrook-St. Johns Highway, and Arizona Federal Aid Project No. 3, part of the National Old Trails Road:

A project agreement had been executed about a year ago with the United States Bureau of Public Roads covering this section of highway, but before proceeding with the construction a change in the alignment was deemed advisable.  This change results in a shorter and more direct road, at considerably less expense, and is entirely within the forest.

The State Highway Department is acting on the theory that there is not sufficient money available to go to any extra expense to reach any particular point in the forest.  The highway, as now located, places within a very short distance of the highway practically the entire part of the forest that would be of interest to tourists, and will open up one of the most wonderful natural phenomena to be found anywhere.

This highway is a link on the Old Trails Highway passing through the northern part of the State by way of Springerville, St. Johns, Holbrook, Winslow, Flagstaff, Ashfork and Kingman.

It is expected that work will start as soon as weather conditions will permit, and that the section will be completed by the beginning of Summer.

The grading and drainage work will be done by contract, but the surfacing will be done by the State Highway Department, using equipment recently acquired from the War Department.  [“To Build Road in Petrified Forest,” Western Highways Builder, February 14, 1920, page 10]

In February 1920, the Arizona State Highway Commission issued a call for bids for construction of a section of the National Old Trails Road between Oatman and Gold Roads.  An article about the call stated, “The section of the highway to be constructed traverses a very difficult country and has taken considerable engineering investigation in order to reduce the cost as much as possible.”  The State was advancing the project under the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916.  “The State’s share of the cost will be paid for out of Mohave County’s 75 per cent portion of the State road tax fund, which is handled jointly by the Board of Supervisors and the State Engineer.”  [“To Start Work Soon on Oatman Highway,” Western Highways Builder, February 14, 1920]

Work was underway to grade the National Old Trails Road in Illinois.  An article about the work described the road, which ran parallel to the Vandalia railroad, in the State:

This trail was established in the early days and the founders sought the most likely route to St. Louis.  At the time of the location of the trail the land had little value for any purpose and the country through which it runs was unsurveyed.

Consequently the trail runs without regard to section lines, in a zigzag fashion, seeking the natural high land in most cases, but generally at an angle of about 30 deg. from an east to west line.  In some places the state highway engineers have changed the route slightly, substituting a curve for two sharp angles, and in other places have changed the route to avoid railroad grade crossings.  In general, however, the Old Trails follows very closely the original route.  It is about 165 mi. from the point of entrance in eastern Illinois to the outlet at East St. Louis, and in this distance there are five crossings on grade of the Vandalia and nine grade crossing of other lines of railroad.

Grading of the road was “much of interest”:

Contracts were let last summer and, with a slight interruption due to cold weather, has been in progress ever since.  The movement of earth varies from relatively slight, the amount required to establish the subgrade on the level stretches, to cuts varying from 3 to 15 ft., where the country becomes more broken.

Grading must precede all other forms of road work.  Grades once established and a hard-surfaced road built, the grade will remain as long as the surface, and in all probability the road will not be touched with respect to grade for a number of years, if then.  Some grades on the National Old Trails are as steep as 7% for a very short distance, but in general these extreme grades are the exception.  The grade usually is not over 5% and that for short distances . . . .

The biggest feature of the work, however, is the distance required to be covered by the engineer who, ordinarily, is expected to be in at least two places at once and on occasions in many more places.  Those who use this road in the future can have very little conception of the toil and sweat of the field engineer on the job.

Although concrete paving was underway, many gaps remained:

Through Marshall, a distance of about 1 mile, no provision has been made for paving, as Marshall is an incorporated town of 2500.  From Marshall to near Vandalia the pavement is continuous.  East of Vandalia there is about 1 mile of 9-ft. concrete pavement and about 2 miles which will require a fill of 6 to 7 ft. to bring it up to the grade required.  A bridge of 6 spans of 50 ft. is required across the Kaskaskia river, just east of the city [to replace a bridge built about 30 years earlier].  A brick pavement has been constructed for about ½ mile through Vandalia, but about 1 mile remains to be paved.  No steps have been taken as yet to provide this pavement.

A short distance west of Sec. P [of the 38 the road had been divided into] the route of the road has not been definitely settled and about 1 mile of paving is to be let.  Through Greenville, about 1½ miles of pavement are included in the village corporate limits to be paved by the village.

At Collinsville about 3 miles of city streets are not included in the program.  This carries the road onward to the corporate limits of East St. Louis where the Trail will cross the Mississippi river over the Free Bridge built by the city of St. Louis.  [Christine, W. T., “Grading National Old Trail Road,” The Road-Maker, Excavator and Grader, July 192020, pages 27-29; Christine, W. T., “Concrete Highway Construction on the Old Trails,” Highway Engineer and Contractor, July 1920, pages 17-23]

Ben Blow, in his 1920 book, cited earlier, about California’s State Highway system, commented on the State highways in California along the National Old Trails Road, without naming the road, including:

Route 9 – San Fernando in Los Angeles County to San Bernardino.

The “Foothill Boulevard,” one the southern California’ most attractive short tours at the foot of the mountains, passing through Pasadena and supplying a connection to at least two transcontinental roads.  All paved in 1919.  [Blow, pages 102-103]

Route 31 – San Bernardino to Barstow.

This route climbs over Cajon Pass from San Bernardino and reaches to Barstow in the midst of the Mojave Desert.  It is paved, thanks to San Bernardino County, to the very top of Cajon Pass and is to be further improved by the State Highway Commission, connects with that important highway which sweeps to the west from Topoc, Arizona, across a wide arched bridge and then from Needles traverses the vast width of San Bernardino County and carries its full burden of transcontinental travel into California, the Cajon Pass over which the Salt Lake Railroad climbs being popularly known as . . . the “Gateway into California,” from which point an unpaved county road leads out into the mystery of the desert to Barstow where it forms a connection with the Barstow-Needles road.  [Blow, pages 111, 211]

Route 58 – Needles to Mojave.

This route, two hundred fifty-five miles in length, extends entirely across San Bernardino County in a general eastwardly and westwardly direction, with an extension into Kern County, where connection is had with an existing State Highway route.

The eastern terminal is commonly regarded as Needles, California, but as a matter of fact is on the California Line opposite Topoc, Arizona, a few miles below Needles, at which point a wide span crosses the Colorado River.

For years one of [the county’s many] problems, the main one perhaps of the multitude which exist, has been the building of a road from Barstow to Needles to supply a comfortable entryway into California for a popularly traveled transcontinental highway over which, as road development takes place in the states enroute a constantly increasing volume of traffic comes to California each year.  The distance between Barstow and Needles is 170 miles and it will be seen at once that the construction of this road would impose a burden upon San Bernardino County too great to bear.  Realizing the need of this road not only to their own county but also to the state the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, when the matter of a new State Highway bond issue was proposed early in 1919, delegated one of its members, Mr. R. L. Riley, of Colton, to attend the meeting which was called to take place in San Francisco, and at this meeting the Barstow-Needles road was made part of the proposed state plan and one of the . . . burdens which San Bernardino County had borne for years was forever removed.

It will form one of the main entrances into California for transcontinental travel, will be principally a touring road, and is to be surfaced with local material.  [Blow, pages 117, 214-215]

Charles Fuller Gates, an experienced traveler, described the National Old Trails Road from Los Angeles to Arizona as encountered during a drive in 1920.  He had spent more than 20 years traveling throughout the area and was “more familiar with the evolution of highways west of the Rockies, perhaps, than any other man.”  He had “seen bad roads develop into excellent highways and good roads evolve from trackless wastes.”

He was traveling to Prescott, once the capital of the Arizona territory.  In the first 500 miles of highway travel, “I found about every kind of road that exists anywhere.  It is just a little over four years since I was over this same route, and great improvements in construction have taken place most of the way.”  He reported that:

The greatest surprise came near Lavic, where I pulled for miles through the lava rock on low speed four years ago, and, of course, had been dreading this part of the desert road.  On reaching the malapai section I found instead of deep ruts through beds of sharp and finely broken rock, a surface of pavement often as smooth as could be desired and for miles, too.  In fact three times between Barstow and the Needles this paved road surface is encountered.  This pavement, the first stretch beginning at Waters, California, formerly known as Newberry Station on the Santa Fe Railroad, where the railroad’s supply of water is obtained, is 33 miles long, while the next section is in excellent shape for a dozen miles.  The road all the way from Los Angeles to the Colorado River, over 300 miles, is all good, though some of the desert travel has small arroyos close enough together to require a speed with automobile as slow as 10 or 15 miles an hour if one values comfort in riding.  The slow stretches resembled the “chucky” roads in Southern California before the day of pavements.

From the number of touring parties I met on the road it looks as though half the country is on the way to California and many flivvers bore that old time slogan:  “To California or Bust.”

Of course the transcontinental trail we know variously as the Old Santa Fe Trail, Old Trails Highway, the Southern Route, New York to Los Angeles, and the State Highway, is paved from the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles to the summit of Cajon Pass on the edge of the desert, about 100 miles.  But few know that there is 50 miles more of pavement on the desert before leaving California, though, of course, this latter is narrow and more or less covered with sand.  Thus half of the way from the sea to the Colorado River we have paved road, with none of the remaining 150 miles very bad.

About 40 miles from the river, roads become quite good so that fast time can be made here, too.  It is not going to be very long before transcontinental tourists will find excellent roads all the way after touching California soil.  In the Bagdad country road builders have carved through some malapai hills a grade that has never been good and put a lot of climbing into the route here that is hard to understand as there is a fairly level desert right alongside where a better grade could have been built at much less cost giving more comfort to those who have to travel this section.

And let me say right here, California, particularly Southern California, should find a way each spring to drag part of the desert road between the Colorado River and Barstow, after the spring rains and the heavy westbound travel begins, so that the now bad part of the road would not exist to confront the Eastern tourists returning home and the newcomers bound west.  The work would not amount to much if done at the right time.  Even, right now, a road crew with a week’s work would neutralize all the bad stretches so that all would have a kindly feeling toward California from the moment the river is crossed at Topoc, some 17 miles beyond Needles.  All through this bad section you can find discarded auto tires every mile, now and then a muffler, a fender or other discarded and ruined part of a motor car or motorcycle.

The 17 miles between Needles and Topoc, where the river is crossed on the free inter-state and Federal bridge, has more climbing than some world famous mountain passes.  Here is a field for engineer work, relocating the road to cut out much of the up and down over rugged hills, where the grades are now altogether too steep.  This stretch gives the Eastern visitors a bad opinion of California and is a dangerous piece of road.

Between the river and Kingman, motorists had two choices.  One was “a fairly level route through Yucca and is fair desert road at present where the sand does not bother as it did in years before this road was improved.”  Beyond Yucca, “the natural material similar to decomposed granite used in the fine Mohave County road work gives an excellent road.”

However, at Needles and Kingman, motorists were advised of a second choice.  They were urged “to take the hill route via Oatman”:

This is about 30 miles over trails from Topoc to Old Trails and Oatman mining camps.  Then there is 60 miles of improved road through the mining camp of Gold Roads and over the divide into the mesa and across the rolling plain to the junction with the Yucca route about five miles out of Kingman.  Then there is the gradual climb up through the foothills to Kingman. 

The Gold Roads grade is now a fine piece of highway both in surface and engineering and a pride to Mohave County highway builders.  Across the mesa cement fords cross the arroyos, thus saving the cost of bridges, which would amount to a large sum, and be hard to keep up on account of cloud bursts that more than fill the arroyos.  This road of 60 miles from Oatman via Gold Roads grade is what would be called a gravel turnpike, made with the natural road making material right at hand.  Grades have been kept below 12 per cent and on the mountain section stone bridges have been put in of dry masonry.

At Topock, Gates had encountered a road engineer camp that was relocating the highway to Oatman, “preparatory to big improvements over the route as this now is part of the most used transcontinental motor route, over which hundreds of cars bound to and from California pass every day.”  He explained:

The present road from Topoc to Oatman is over a big mesa, a cattle range along the river, then up through hills with climbs that give you plenty of thrills, a wild road, hard on tires, tempers, brakes, nerves and motors.  Some of the way, where there is clay, the trail has planks laid lengthwise like railroad tracks, for the motor car wheels to travel.  Out of Kingman there is an excellent road all the way to Hackberry, parallel with the Santa Fe Railway tracks and on ground leased from the railroad by Mohave County.  There are many arroyo cement fords on this stretch, and the natural material wears well.  The big railroad signs telling the traveling public that it is on ground owned by the corporation, though leased by the county, and can be taken possession of at any time by railroad loom up regularly and compete in attention with the religious signs painted on the big rocks.

An accompanying photograph showed one of the signs:

This is NOT a public road
The undersigned hereby gives notice that this road
is located upon its right of way pursuant to a license
from the undersigned to the county of Mohave
which may be revoked whenever its necessities may
require and that persons using this road do so at
their own risk.  A. T. & S. F. Ry Co.

Gates reported that east of Hackberry, the road “gets worse for a while, then better as it has not had the same care as had been given the highway nearer Kingman.”  Through the Peach Springs section, the road has been moved “to a more direct route than the old trail and is up to the Mohave County high standard, but soon after reaching Peach Springs comes Nelson and the county line with the end of good roads until one nears Seligman as Yavapai County has not yet begun real work on this route, though recently bonding itself for a million and half to be used for construction work.”

Four years earlier, Gates had followed the railroad through this section, “all in bad condition”:

The present road is through another canyon, to reach which the road doubles back a half mile at Nelson after crossing the railroad, requiring opening two ranch gates.  This canyon road was graded and many corrugated iron culverts put in but a broken dam flooded the canyon last year and the present trail winds around these culverts and pitches through a thousand ruts and sinkholes.  On the Red Mesa beyond are similar conditions.

U. R. Fishel, the engineer for the Yavapai County Highway Commission, informed me that his rutty canyon route would be abandoned and a new route much better from Nelson to the Red Mesa built under the new bond issue.  In fact, much of the route to Seligman will be changed, possibly that is why this part of the Old Trails Highway has been neglected. 

The remainder of the trip, about 85 miles from Seligman to Prescott, was off the line of the National Old Trails Road.  [Gates, Charles Fuller, “On the Trail of the Western Road Builder,” Western Highways Builder, July 3, 1920, pages 10-11, 30]

In December, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors informed the Arizona State Highway Department that the county had awarded the contract on November 29 for construction of the

Oatman-Topock road to the department at cost plus $10:

The road will cost $200,000 for the 28 miles; half of the funds will be derived from the Mohave County bond issue, and the remainder from Federal Aid funds.  The department having received notice from the Federal district engineer that plans and specifications have been approved, work will begin today [December 10] as in anticipation of favorable action by both the county and the Federal government the State has already shipped one contracting outfit to Topoc . . . .  It is the intention of the highway department to send most of its men and equipment into Northern Arizona on this job, in order to get the work completed before hot weather.  Surveys for this work were completed last summer, the plans worked up in the Phoenix office and sent in for Federal approval some weeks ago.  [“Oatman-Topoc Road to be Built by State,” Western Highways Builder, December 18, 1920, page 25]

D.A.R. Annual Congress, 1920

When the D.A.R. met in Washington in April 1920, Mrs. Van Brunt, chairman of the National Old Trails Road Committee, could not be present, but submitted her annual report to be filed:

The National Old Trails Road Committee was first formed to preserve the National Old Trails Road as a trans-continental road; to promote and develop it; to crystallize its history by erecting monuments along its length, marking places having historical significance; and wherever practicable, reopening the old taverns and establishing museums.

Later the committee was instructed to take charge of all the old trails, traces and roads of our country; to record their history, note their historic points and map their routes.

The heart of this committee, however, is the National Old Trails Road, and whether it runs through your State or not, we hope you will take an interest in it, for our National Society has adopted this great six-thousand-mile road [sic] and pledged its support.  Remember it is our road and let us always cherish it in our hearts.

The loyalty of the National Society made it possible to build the Memorial Continental Hall “as a Memorial to our forefathers, and I believe that that same loyalty, that same putting aside of self, is going to build our National Old Trails Road, our “Road of Loving Hearts”:

We ask you who live beside the National Old Trails Road to conserve its history; restore its taverns; record the points where, due to present-day conditions, we have been compelled to leave the old path; emphasize its scenic as well as historical value; study its needs as a trans-continental highway; but, above all, work for its adoption as a National Road.

We ask you who are its neighbors to familiarize yourselves with its history; its scenic points; its relation to your roads; the part it took in the development of our country and its humanitarian value, so that whether you live beside it or view it from afar, you will feel that it is your road.  Work, too, for its adoption as a National Road . . . .

War work has become a thing of the past.  Reconstruction problems have been solved and we turn to old work with job.  Those who so loved the National Old Trails Road work that they carried on despite the insistent demands of other things have turned to it with fresh vigor, those to whom it is new, show keen interest.

(The D.A.R. built Memorial Continental Hall on 17th Street in 1905 as the National Society’s headquarters.  “Memorial Continental Hall houses one of the world’s most important genealogical libraries, an extensive collection of antique home furnishings displayed in more than 30 period rooms and glamorous spaces available to the public for an array of different occasions.”  [https://www.dar.org/museum/exhibitions/memorial-continental-hall-100-years-history])

Maryland, the committee reported, had passed a law authorizing the Maryland State Road Commission to post the National Old Trails Road sign of the D.A.R. along the road at intervals of not over a mile.  This move should inspire other States to take similar action:

I have always felt that the States themselves should sign post the section of the National Old Trails Road within their borders, that sign to be the one adopted by the National Society and known as the Daughters of the American Revolution National Old Trails Road sign . . . .  I hope the day is not far distant when we will see the Daughters of the American Revolution National Old Trails Road from the Atlantic to the Pacific outlined with the Red, White and Blue (symbol of our flag) with the Daughters of the American Revolution insignia above it, but that should not interfere with the preservation of the individuality of the links of the National Old Trails Road.

Although the Maryland General Assembly had appropriated funds to install the D.A.R. signs along the State’s National Old Trails Road, Chairman John N. Mackall of the State Roads Commission was not interested.  The Baltimore Sun reported that the signs – a red, white, and blue sign topped with a picture of an old-fashioned spinning wheel, crossed with a distaff, may “be trampled down by a modern marking system”:

Now it seems that Mr. Mackall has some very fixed ideas about road marking.  Some time ago when he was chief engineer he explained his plans for a modern and uniform system.  The spinning wheel and distaff sign submitted by the old trails road committee does not conform to Mr. Mackall’s plans.  His idea is to forget all of the old trails, which, he says, are almost obliterated, and adopt a system of rechristening the roads by colors for the convenience of automobilists.

“They want to name the road the Old Trails road, very well and good,” said Mr. Mackall, “But I am certainly going to object to providing funds for any road marker that is out of harmony with the system I am going to propose.

Mr. Mackall says he hopes to get the necessary appropriation for his road-marking system during the fall.  It will cost, he says, in the neighborhood of $100,000.  [“D.A.R. Sign for Old Trails Road Being Frowned on By Mackall,” The Baltimore Sun, June 6, 1920]

Mrs. Van Brunt report referred to the brochure containing Representative Borland’s speech and a map of the National Old Trails Road.  “These pamphlets should be treasured, for I doubt if we will be able to secure any more.”

She added:

When we reach our goal four names will be written high on our honor roll – Elizabeth Butler Gentry, who through her powers of organization placed our road in the leading ranks of national roads; the Hon. William P. Borland, who for so long guarded its standing before Congress; Mrs. Henry McCleary, who watched over and furthered our roads’ interest through dark days; and Judge J. M. Lowe, the father of the National Old Trails Road.

Nine years ago the Hon. William P. Borland introduced our Daughters of the American Revolution National Old Trails Road bill in Congress and we have been knocking at those doors ever since, pleading that our road might be made the Nation’s first trans-continental highway, not because it was the most practical route across our country, but because it interpreted the development of our Nation and was the path of our fathers.  We owe the present standing of our bill to Mr. Borland’s unflagging interest and by his death we lost our best and most loyal friend.

(Representative Borland died on February 20, 1919, of bronchial pneumonia in France, where he and other Members of Congress were visiting American commands and troops.  He had served in the House since his election in1908, representing the Kansas City area, but had been defeated in the primary election in 1918.)

If we can bring to the Daughters of the American Revolution a realizing sense of the part these old trails and roads, composing the National Old Trails Road, have taken in the development of our Nation and how they have welded our country together, we will win our goal.

She addressed one criticism of the Borland bill:

No one could call our House Bill 8011, a park bill.  It does not improve any backwoods stream or local cross-roads.  The people could not spend the people’s money for anything of much more use to the people in general.

She encouraged everyone to read a series of articles by Dr. Emerson Hough, a prolific writer of western fiction and nonfiction, in the Saturday Evening Post under the general title “Traveling the Old Trails.”  Reading them provides “a fuller knowledge of those paths, those days, the motives under them, and a deeper understanding of the great need of preserving them.”

(The articles are:  “When Calico Was King” (July 5, 1919); “Once Upon a Time” (August 2, 1919); “The Road to Oregon” (August 23, 1919); “The Long Trail of the Cow Country” (September 13, 1919); and “Out of Doors” (February 14, 1920.))

She thought it “particularly fitting that such an article should come out in that paper, which was founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1828, and all through its one hundred and ninety-two years of existence has stood for everything that was beneficial for our country.  That paper itself typifies the tying of the past to the present!” 

She concluded her report by stating:

I am told a bill will be passed by the next Congress to build at least one great trans-continental road.  Is this road to be our road – the road hewed out of the wilderness by our forefathers?  It is the most historical.  It is the most practical.

Build roads, build a network of roads across our country, but first of all, build the National Old Trails Road, and build it as a memorial to those men and women who handed down to us the courage which made possible the sacrifices of today – as a memorial to those sons of our Nation who sleep forever in foreign lands under the “low green tents.”  [Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Continental Congress of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, April 1920, pages 334-339]

Testifying before the Senate Committee

In a statement on April 15, 1920, Chairman Townsend of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads made clear that he would not urge Congress to consider national highway legislation during the current session.  Better Roads and Streets explained:

This committee was called together during the week of April 19th to consider proposals to create a national commission which would take over the powers now exercised by the Secretary of Agriculture in connection with highway appropriations and road construction and maintenance by the federal government.  The commission would also be asked to prepare a map of the country showing proposals for a system of national highways.  A bill for the purpose of creating a federal highway commission and providing appropriations for the construction of a system of national highways was introduced early in the present session as S. 3572 by the chairman of the committee.  [Untitled, Better Roads and Streets, May 1920, page 224]

Senator Townsend’s Committee began hearings on May 4, 1920, on S. 3572.  American Motorist pointed out:

Hearings started May 4 and continued for more than a fortnight before the Senate Post Office and Post Roads Committee on the need for additional Federal highways legislation.  There are before the committee a number of important bills.  One introduced by Senator Charles E. Townsend of Michigan provides for a Federal highway commission and a Federal system of roads constructed and maintained by the Government.  Senator Lawrence C. Phipps of Colorado, Senator George E. Chamberlain of Oregon, and Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas, have measures calling for additional appropriations and amendments to the present Federal Aid Road Act.

These hearings were held at this time in order to ascertain the sentiment of the country as to the need for additional legislation and appropriations and to develop through expert testimony the character of the legislation desired.

Witnesses testifying before the committee were divided into two main groups:  one consisting of those who favor the Federal highway commission and a Federal system of roads, as outlined in the Townsend bill; the others consisting of those opposed to this bill and who would have the present Federal Aid activities substantially continued.  Their idea is that ultimately the various Federal Aid projects will naturally connect up into a system of interstate roads.

Both sides believe that the existing Federal Aid law should be so amended as to permit those States in the West containing large areas of Government-owned land to so apportion their unexpanded Federal Aid allotments in their own States as to permit the Government to contribute to the cost of construction somewhat in proportion to the area of patented lands in those States as provided for in the Phipps and Chamberlain bills.

The result would be that the public-lands States would pay a smaller percentage than the 50-50 State-Federal share in the other States for Federal-aid highway projects.

Many supporters of the Townsend bill favored continuation of the Federal-aid program to give it a fair test.  These supporters favored restricting Federal-aid funds to “definite, limited State systems and that the types of construction should be of a more durable and substantial character than those to which the funds are now being applied on the majority of the projects heretofore approved.”  Nothing in the Townsend bill precluded continuation of the Federal-aid program, but both programs probably could not continue indefinitely.  “The best system would ultimately prevail.”

The reality was that the Federal-aid highway program was funded through FY 1921, reducing pressure to focus on the subject in the current session:

At these hearings Senator Townsend has repeatedly indicated that there is no possibility of securing an appropriation at this time either for additional Federal Aid or for the construction of a national system of roads.  He does believe, however, that legislation ought to be passed which would provide for a Federal highway commission with ample powers and a sufficient appropriation to permit it to study the whole situation in its broadest aspect, to lay out the Federal system of roads, and to prepare a report to Congress in order that definite appropriations might be provided later on.  [Eldridge, M.O, “Senate Committee Hears Roads Men,” American Motorist, June 1920, pages 14, 58]

(M. O. Eldridge, known as “MO,” had been the third employee of the U.S. Office of Road Inquiries in 1893.  For many years, he had been in charge of BPR’s economic, statistical, and extension work.  He was a prolific writer and a popular speaker on good roads subjects, probably delivering more speeches on the subject than anyone else.  He resigned in 1919 to join AAA as an editor of American Motorist and Director of Roads.  [“Eldridge Quits Gov’t Service to Join A.A.A.,” American Motorist, August 1919, page 42])

While the hearings were underway, Vice President Thomas R. Marshall – known today primarily for his 1914 quip that "What this country needs is a really good five-cent cigar" – approved release of a statement based on his remarks to the convention of the United States Good Roads Association in Hot Springs, Arkansas, which ended on April 17.  The Vice President, an attorney
and former Democratic Governor of Indiana, stated:

While I feel that the general government, by its benefactions to the several states, is usurping the functions and killing the initiative of the individual states, I am quite convinced that the one good thing which it is doing in this way is the building of good roads.  The federal government has the cleanest, finest, ablest, and most disinterested road engineers in the world.  It has, in my opinion, constitutional authority to improve the post roads of the country.  But the aid heretofore given has been generously used in piecemeal by rich counties matching their dollars against the general government’s dollars.

I am quite convinced that the congressional sentiment is that the several states of the Union may as well make up their minds that if there is to be further federal appropriation on the fifty-fifty plan, it must be upon one of two bases; either that the general government shall have exclusive control of all the funds or that the general government will adopt a great trunk system and will construct that system in a state only when the state has contracted to construct an equal mileage of laterals of like character.  [“Vice-President Marshall for National Highways,” Better Roads and Streets, May 1920,
page 216]

On May 11, Chairman Townsend welcomed S. M. Williams to testify before the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads as chairman of the Federal Highway Council.  After he explained the membership in the council and supporting organizations, he explained what his organization represented:

I would say, briefly speaking, placing the highway administration of this country on the highest possible level, so that we will get, in so far as we can, greater economy from the expenditure of our money, and development of highways so they will better meet the transportation needs of the country.  By that I mean the development along the lines of national, State, and county systems.  Our work not only relates to national policies, including the national system as provided for in your bill, but we are cooperating very closely with the States in the direction of their campaigns, with a view of aiding in so far as possible the laying out of proper plans for the expenditure of the money.

We go farther than that – into county campaigns and cooperate with counties – so that we are not simply an institution here in the interest of national development, but we are vitally interested in this all development plan.  [sic]

Asked if he was aware of any organized opposition to the plan, Williams replied:

The organized opposition, in so far as we have seen, has come from some of the State highway departments that seem to fear that the Townsend bill is going to interfere with their prerogatives.  In other words, that it is going to take away some of the authority that they now have in the States.  I am glad to say that that does not exist in the majority of the States where actual work has been accomplished, whereas the men engaged in the development of the large amount of work realize, first, the handicap that they have to overcome in the development of systems through the local political influences which surround and always have surrounded highway development, and also the practicability of working along definite plans rather than a hit-and-miss plan, as we frequently call it.  [Good Roads, Hearing before the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, United States Senate, 66th Congress, 2d Session, on S. 3572, Part 1, 1920, pages 101-106]

The committee heard from Roy Chapin on May 13.  He described his background, including his leadership of the Hudson Motor Car Company and Federal service during the war.  He explained, however, that “16 years ago I took up this question of highways more or less as a hobby, outside of my business.”  He said:

As a result of my experience I wish to give you some idea of how the automobile industry and the users view the future of the highway problem in this country.  I want to go back 20 years in the past, as I want to go, a little later on, about 20 years into the future in our study of this problem.  Twenty years ago, we rarely traveled over 20 miles in a day – I presume that the average trip that a man made over the highways then was not over 4 or 5 miles.  The coming of the motor vehicle has, of course, changed that condition entirely.  You have given an individual a radius of action, of say 150 to 200 miles a day in a passenger car, and there are trucks operating to-day along regular routes, covering from 100 to 125 miles in a day.  Thus you have changed the situation entirely so far as our American roads are concerned.  Previously they were strictly rural roads, and used almost entirely by the rural population.  To-day they have become interstate or interurban routes of travel, and now as a result largely of the war development they have become a true transportation system – one of the three great units in the transportation system of this country.

Now, the point I want to make is this; that whereas 20 years ago the highways of this country were rural roads, and were used largely by the farmer, to-day they have come to be used by practically every citizen of the United States.  We have a railroad system in this country, which has a total mileage of about 250,000; we have a highway system with a total mileage of two and half million.  If, as I believe, and I think we will all agree, the entire mileage of the highway system is to be used for transportation purposes more and more, it becomes just as necessary that we treat the question of highways and highway transportation from as broad a standpoint as we treat the problem of railroad transportation.  Future traffic over the highways is going to be tremendous.  I estimate you see a total daily of 30,000,000 people riding on American highways.

He explained that the country had “about 8,000,000 motor cars in use in the country.  In addition, he estimated 20 million horses and mules were in use, “so that you have a very heavy proportion of our population that use our roads daily, and that condition, of course, has been changed radically from what it was 20 years ago.  Now, if that change has taken place in 20 years, naturally it is the duty of all of us to predict the change that will take place in the next 20 years”:

If we look ahead for 20 years, we see a condition where we shall have, as we all know, a very considerable proportion of highways improved so they can be used practically every day of the year.  The ideal condition, naturally, is one where your road pays a dividend, as it were, by being useful for every day of the year, because a road was never built for any purpose except to be used, and its value to the country is in proportion to its use . . . .

Now, what I am aiming to bring out to you is that the question of highway development has now become an economic problem; it is no longer a problem only of the agricultural interests, or a problem of the manufacturing interests, or a problem of the city man; it is an economic problem of the whole country, a transportation problem, and the interest of the automobile industry is not confined to any one particular solution.  The interest of the industry naturally is this:  We are furnishing transportation, individual and freight.  We want to secure the maximum efficiency, very naturally, and we would like to see the money that is spent by the Government on the highways of the country secure the maximum of result, not only now, but with a true vision of the transportation problem that we will have 5, 10, 15, 20 years later over our American roads.

For that to happen, “we must reorganize our present methods, so far as highways are concerned.”  A national highway commission “would give you the best results”:

It would furnish nonpartisan administration, would give proper geographic representation to meet the diverse needs of each section of the country, and would give a truly representative national administration of the highways which could not possibly obtain under the present law, where you administer the highways as a subordinate division of one of our governmental departments.

The commission could construct the roads for a national system or rely on State highway departments “that are efficient” to build the roads.  “But the Government should have the money put on its own system of roads, and under governmental supervision so that we get back a dollar for every dollar that we put in.”  The point of the commission would be this:

I think that before we do anything in the way of building national highways that we have got to set our administration straight, to do the thing from a national, economic, and efficient standpoint.  [Good Roads, pages 171-175]

S. M. Williams returned on May 14 to introduce several speakers, including Judge Lowe.  With Senator Townsend unavoidably detained, Senator Charles B. Henderson of Nevada was chairman for the day’s hearing.

Judge Lowe's appearance began with questions from Senator Henderson:

The CHAIRMAN.  Judge Lowe, will you state your full name to the reporter, and your place of residence and occupation?

Judge LOWE.  J. M. Lowe, Kansas City, Mo.

The CHAIRMAN.  What business are you engaged in, Judge Lowe?

Judge LOWE.  Why, it would be difficult to tell, unless I would just say, "in the road business."

The CHAIRMAN.  And will you state, for the sake of the record, the associations or organizations that you are connected with having in view the interests of the roads of the country?

Judge LOWE. Yes, sir; the National Old Trails Road Association.

Beginning his prepared testimony, Judge Lowe promised not to “make a road speech”:

I would not do that if you had your entire committee here; that would be putting it in the past to do that; but I only desire to dwell very briefly upon some of the points that I think are material to be passed upon by your committee, and in looking over them I have indulged in some references to the historical features of the road question.

The lamp of experience ought to teach us much on the subject before us for consideration.  National highways, to be built and maintained by the General Government, is far from being a new or startling position.  It is as old as the Government itself.  The Constitutional Convention of 1783 had just adjourned, and the Government organized thereunder was still in a formative condition when this question arose, and a measure was passed and approved by Mr. Jefferson in 1806 establishing the Old National or Cumberland Road, beginning at Cumberland Md., and extending to the Ohio River at Wheeling and by various acts of Congress afterwards extended westward, until it reached the Mississippi River opposite St. Louis.  This road was built and maintained by the General Government until 1837.

He discussed several of his usual historical landmarks, including the 1824 election, with the main candidates being John Quincy Adams, who favored internal improvements, and Andrew Jackson, who questioned their constitutionality; Senator Benton’s meeting with former President Jefferson about the Santa Fe Trail; and the long-running question about whether internal improvements by the central government met the constitutional standard.

He continued that “every politician can mention without hesitancy, the post roads provision of the Constitution; but nearly all of them seemed to be oblivious of the commerce clause of the Constitution.”  He explained:

In the case of Stockton versus Baltimore A. T. Z Railroad, 32 Federal Reporter, page 9, Justice Brewer, in rendering the decision of the court, said:

Nor have we any doubt that under the same power the means of commercial communication by land as well as water may be opened up by Congress between different States whenever it shall see fit to do so, either on the failure of the States to provide such communication or whenever in the opinion of Congress the increased facilities of communication ought to exist.  Hitherto, it is true, the means of commercial communication have been supplied either by nature in the navigable waters of the country or by the States in the construction of roads, canals and railroads.  So that the functions of Congress have not been largely called into play, under this branch of its jurisdiction and power, excepting in the improvement of rivers and harbors and the licensing of bridges across navigable streams; but this is not proof that its power does not extend to the whole subject in all possible requirements.  Indeed, it has been put forth in several notable instances which stand as strong arguments of practical construction given to the Constitution by the legislative department of the Government.  The Cumberland or National Road is one instance of a grand thoroughfare project by Congress, extending from the Potomac to the Mississippi.

(This paragraph appears in Stockton v. Baltimore & N.Y.R., 32 F. 9 (1887), an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Joseph B. Bradley dated August 1, 1887.  The paragraph that includes the quoted language began:

The power to regulate commerce among the several states is given by the constitution in the most general and absolute terms.  The “power to regulate,” as applied to a government, has a most extensive application.  With regard to commerce, it has been expressly held that it is not confined to commercial transactions, but extends to seamen, ships, navigation, and the appliances and facilities of commerce.  And it must extend to these, or it cannot embrace the whole subject.  Under this power, the navigation of rivers and harbors has been opened and improved, and we have no doubt that canals and water-ways may be opened to connect navigable bays, harbors, and rivers with each other, or with the interior of the country.  Nor have we any doubt . . . .”

(Judge Lowe may have confused Justice Bradley with “Justice Brewer” because Supreme Court Justice David Brewer wrote two notable opinions supporting the Federal Government’s constitutional authority to undertake internal improvements, including highway projects:  Monongahela Navigation Company v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893), and Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24 (1907).)

Judge Lowe continued:

I have quoted the above decision because I have recently seen a letter from one high authority who readily quotes the post-roads clause of the Constitution, but seems to have entirely forgotten or to have overlooked the commerce clause of that instrument.

He came to his main point:

Now, one word as to the practicability of the proposed measure.  We have had about five years of experience in attempting to build roads under what is called "the Federal Aid Act," with the result that only $12,000,000 of the $275,000,000 appropriated, has been actually expended under the provisions of that measure, and this money went into a scattered, detached, unconnected system of roads, or rather no system at all, resulting in the building of short sections, so scattered over the country as to be of no general benefit.

This $12,000,000, if it had been applied upon a continuous road, would have at least built one road, if the cost of construction should be $30,000 per mile, 400 miles in length, and this would not have reached entirely across many of the States – your State, for instance.  If it had been supplemented by an equal amount of money raised by the State, county, or smaller legal subdivisions thereof, it would have built 800 miles of road.  And this would have been of some general benefit to the country.

And these funds were applied to scattered sections, wholly unconnected, of different types, much of it dirt, sand, clay, gravel, waterbound macadam, and other cheap roads, which are practically no roads at all, and it is scarcely too much to charge this very largely to absolute waste.

Study this question in the light of experience, analyze it any way you may, and there is but one possible conclusion that can solve the road problem in a sensible, practical, business-like way, and that is for the General Government to build a system of national highways under the supervision and control of national authority, preferably its execution placed in the hands of some one individual like a Goethels [General George Washington Goethals, Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal] or a Hoover – I am not going to talk about politics, but I would vastly prefer, personally, to see Mr. Hoover at the head of a commission like this than to see him President, because he has been tried in the one instance, and I do not know how he would operate in the other; but he has made good as far as we have tried him.  I say, preferably, its execution placed in the hands of some one individual like a Goethals or a Hoover or a Charles Henry Davis, of Massachusetts, with responsibility fully fixed, clothed with all needful authority, and fully financed by the Government.

This national system can then be supplemented by a State system, under absolute authority and direction of the State, county, and other legal subdivisions can then build their own system, all connected with a State and national system, and thus ultimately resulting in a splendid system of all-the-year-round roads, reaching every nook and corner of the entire country.

All attempts to develop roads by first building local roads, “radial” roads, or roads reaching out from the railroad station and ending on Possum Ridge or in Raccoon Hollow have failed.  Not until trunk lines are built will there be any material advance in road building.  These trunk lines will be educational in their effects and will bring about a desire for building local lines.  Otherwise, there will be no desire or reason for the existence of such local feeders.  Branch railroad lines were built after the trunk lines were established, otherwise they could not have existed.

While discrimination, as between districts is neither wise nor fair, nevertheless if any preference should be favored, the farming and rural districts are considered to first consideration, for the reason that they need roads more than the urban centers do; and, what is more, they need help to build them.  In most districts they can not of themselves furnish the funds necessary with which to build, either by undertaking the job at their own expense, or by matching dollars with the General Government.

In many of the western States they simply can not build under the Federal aid act.  The can not raise the necessary funds.  Now, I speak from practical personal knowledge.  I have campaigned clear across the Continent, and I know that in many of the western States they can not raise the funds necessary; some of them are prohibited by constitutional provisions which do not enable them to raise the required amount of money, and others are too poor.

A national system of highways built and maintained by the National Government will serve national purposes and likewise be the heavy traffic main trunk lines within the several States.  Such a system will relieve the States of any cost of their construction and maintenance.

Thus relieved, the States can build more miles than now State highways, thereby reaching more remote farming districts than are now reached.

Such a system of State highways will likewise be the heavy traffic lines within the several counties.  They will be connected with the national system.  Such system of national and State roads will thus relieve the counties of any expense for their construction and such counties can then build more miles of other or secondary roads, thereby still further reaching out into the more remote farming districts.

Such system of county roads will likewise be the traffic roads within their respective counties and therefore, finally, the township or districts can build more miles than now of their lighter traffic roads and thereby reach those farming districts farthest from the market towns and railroads.

By this fourfold system of roads there will be an impetus as yet unthought of given to road building throughout the United States.  Authority and responsibility will be logically and economically fixed without complications arising.  Uniformity and efficiency will be established.  Rivalry in construction and maintenance will exist between the different systems.  This will give us good roads everywhere by a well-balanced, connected system of national, State, county, and township highways.  The moneys thus raised and appropriated will get into roads where it belongs and not into politics, where it does not belong.  The cost will be equitably distributed upon those communities best able to bear the burden.

Judge Lowe turned to a common problem of interstate motor travel:

By the present system, if system it may be called, we are placed in the anomalous condition that the tourist or citizen, starting from the Atlantic, is liable to arrest the moment he crosses a State line, and remains under such embarrassment at every State line he may cross between the Atlantic and the Pacific.  He must pay a license tax in many States through which he may travel.  As some indication of the enormous expense attending such transportation it may be stated that as early as 1912 there were 35,000 “foreign automobiles” who took out licenses and toured California, leaving $17,500,000 in that State.  It is a safe calculation to multiply that sum now five or six times.  In the same year of 1912 there were 6,000 “foreign cars” in Colorado, leaving $2,700,000 in that States.  This, too, may be multiplied five or six times.

The average tourist is one of the most liberal spenders of money, and without any such charges as the above being made against him, he ought to be encouraged because he will put in circulation vast volumes of money in every State through which he may travel.  Why should a citizen of the United States be treated like a foreigner when he crosses a State line?

Suppose the navigable rivers of the country were made subject to different navigation laws in every State through which such rivers may flow, such complications would arise that it would put an effectual embargo or quietus on such traffic, and yet it is just as practicable and sensible to subject the navigable rivers of the country to State and local supervision and control as it is to subject the national roads of the country.

He concluded his opening statement:

The fourfold system is the solution and the only solution of the whole vast problem of building a system of dependable roads throughout the country, and when it is done we will only marvel at our long delay and wonder why we postponed the accomplishment of the greatest purpose ever conceived in the mind of man.

Senator Henderson asked Judge Lowe why he preferred the Townsend bill to the present Federal-aid highway program.  Judge Lowe explained:

Because I believe it would be the beginning of the construction of roads beginning somewhere and going somewhere; that it would mean the construction of continuous roads instead of undertaking to build them by piecemeal, by patchwork, as we are building to-day under the Federal aid act.  Now, for instance, I have joined in many campaigns where we would undertake to carry a township-bond election, or a
petition – in some of the States you do it by petition, and in some by election; and possibly after much laborious effort we would succeed in that township or road district, or even county.  I have engaged in all of those kinds of campaign; and then we would probably skip half a dozen counties before we would find another live community ready to take action.  That would mean, if we would go ahead and construct a section already provided for, then when we get to the end of that we plunge into the mud, and have no road clear across the State.  That little patch of good road stands out there and will be allowed to go to decay, because there is no incentive to keep up a road that goes nowhere.

That is one objection to it; and another is that if men were all alike we might be able to build some one of those roads continuously; but they are not.  They differ, and we find a world of men who say, “My grandfather lived here, and traveled over this road, and what was good enough for him is good enough for me.”  And another serious objection to it is – I have no doubt the intention of Congress was, under that bill, to make the State the sole unit; but it has been so interpreted that instead of that practically they make the smallest local subdivision in a county the unit.  For instance, we carried, in Kansas, a campaign in one county – it was a county-wide proposition – and we carried the bond elections or petitions, and then the next step was to get the State highway board to certify and approve our actions, which they did promptly, and sent it down to the roads division of the Agricultural Department here, and they approved it, certified it back – all the legal steps had been taken up to that point, and when it reached that county again, those who had the initiative, and must take the initiative under that bill if any roads were built at all – they then sat back and refused to sell the bonds and let the contract, and one of the commissioners stated publicly that he did not have any assurance that Uncle Sam would keep his promise, that his money would be forthcoming, and they would like to see the color of his money first.  That pig-headed commissioner sat himself up superior to the State or nation so far as the building of that road was concerned, and it stands there to-day in that condition.

The CHAIRMAN.  You believe, then, that it is better to have our national highway systems under one head than 48 different heads?

Judge LOWE.  Just exactly.  You have stated it better than I could have stated it, possibly.  I do not believe in divided authority and responsibility anywhere.  It ought to be fixed and definite, and then if we have got hold of the wrong fellow we can get rid of him.  But where you scatter it out, and have to consult 48 different highway boards and get them to cooperate with the Federal board – and under the application of this Federal aid system it comes down to where the smallest legal subdivision in the county controls the whole situation, because he can sit back and refuse, after you have gone through all this effort to raise the funds, and say, “Materials are too high,” or “It costs too much,” or any other reason.

Senator Henderson summarized that under the Townsend bill, the country would have one Federal Highway Commission while each State could have its State highway commission.  He asked, “The States could then connect up with the national highway system?”  Judge Lowe agreed.  Senator Henderson continued, “And the counties, in turn, connect up with the State and National systems?”  Judge Lowe agreed:

The CHAIRMAN.  You would have a coordinating body there that would give to the people of the country the best roads possible?

Judge LOWE.  Yes.

The CHAIRMAN.  To-day do you find that there is lack of cooperation between the States in the construction of State highway systems?

Judge LOWE.  Absolutely.  I think that if that is to remain the settled policy of the Government, then the States ought to be absolutely required, as a precedent to obtaining Federal aid, that they would coordinate their systems, connected with the systems adopted by the adjoining States, so as to make roads continuous.  Otherwise, one State can lay out a system that connects with no place in an adjoining State.

The CHAIRMAN.  How does the Federal aid act operate in Missouri?

Judge LOWE.  I think, in the main, satisfactorily.  We have got a very high class board of commissioners there, and they are building some roads – not much – I do not think Missouri has ever drawn down more than $9,000,000 under the Federal aid act.  The Government does not pay until the job is completed.  Now, they have put more money than that into roads, but I speak of completed roads now, and Kansas is practically about the same.  Now, it will take all eternity, it seems to me, to build a system of roads that would be worth while under that system, and I believe you could spend billions upon billions of money in that slipshod, scattered way and still have no system of roads worth while.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been interested in the good-roads movement, Judge?

Judge LOWE. Oh, I don't remember the first record; the first that I recall is 1910. Since that time I have given every hour of my time to it absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN.  In the construction of highways in the State of Missouri under the Federal aid act, does the State make provision for a fund to carry on maintenance?

Judge LOWE:  No; that is another thing that I would do if I were drafting an amendment to the Federal aid bill, or proposing to carry out the Federal aid act. 
I would make it an absolute precedent that a State asking for Federal aid should put up the money, or take steps to secure the funds, with which they could cooperate with the Government.  They have not done it; only five or six States – Oregon, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and perhaps one or two others.

The CHAIRMAN.  In order to have good roads it is just as necessary to have a fund to keep them up as it is to build them.

Judge LOWE:  Absolutely so.  Now, we have a State bond issue pending in Missouri, but unfortunately we can only vote on that kind of a proposition at a regular election.  Now, it comes along next fall when we are electing everything from President down to constable – and especially constable – and everybody will get excited over that and neglect more important matters; but I think we will carry it anyway.

S. M. Williams interrupted:

I wanted to suggest one or two things.  In the first place, the Judge is rather modest when you question him as to his experience and affiliations in road work.  In 1910, when he took part in this work, he practically retired from his personal activities, and since then has not only devoted his own time but his own money to this cause; so we feel that as he has traveled practically against the doctor’s orders in coming here that he is entitled to some appreciation for it, in working for the cause, to come here.

Now, there is just one more thing, and that is in regard to the impracticability of the Federal aid law, and the fact that the Federal aid law, as we see it, was never designed to build a system of Federal highways.  As he said a moment ago, it distributes the money in such a wide manner, so that to concentrate that on a few roads would get away from the original principle of the law.  It was made broader in the last session of Congress by changing the word “shall” to “may,” and the other fact is one that was brought here day before yesterday, by some of the highway officials, that the Federal Government, under the present law, has the right to absolutely dictate where the money shall be spent.  As we see it – I would like to have the Judge’s opinion on that.  We believe that if they can show that mail can be carried over any route, that it would be up [to] the Federal Government to agree to the building of that road. 

(Williams was referring to the post road restriction in the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, as amended in 1919.  Within the network of eligible roads, the States determined which projects to build.)

Senator Henderson said, “I am glad, Mr. Williams, that you spoke of the Judge's modesty.  In reading the record one does not always get the enthusiasm and interest shown by the witness who appears in person to give the testimony or make the statement, and the interest of this witness in the good roads of the country is so apparent that I asked him how long he had been interested in good roads for the country, because

I wanted the record to show that he had given it his personal attention for some period of time.”

Judge Lowe replied, “If you will pardon me, I will say I have no selfish interest – no material interest in this question.  I do not even own an automobile, and would not know what the dickens to do with it if I had one.

A discussion ensued to close out the day’s testimony:

The CHAIRMAN.  Now, your question, Mr. Williams –

Mr. WILLIAMS.  The first was in regard to the impracticability of building a national system by reason of the general distribution under the Federal-aid law, and to the fact that that was made broader in the change of the word “shall” to “may.”  It was done for the purpose of giving a wider distribution.

Judge LOWE.  Absolutely so.  We are endeavoring to be generous rather than just; to scatter the Federal funds – you will pardon me for saying it – we are scattering the Federal funds where they will do the most political good.

The CHAIRMAN.  In other words, the money under the Federal-aid act, was turned over to the States, and they used it upon such roads as they cared to use it on?

Judge LOWE.  That is right, exactly.

The CHAIRMAN.  In every instance it is not designed to construct a national highway that will be of use and service to the people outside of that particular State.  In other words, more interest is given to the confines of the State than to the national interest, in many instances, I believe.

Judge LOWE.  In the majority of instances.  Now, I have heard right recently, a well-informed gentleman said to me on my way down here to Washington – he said, “Why a national system of roads, anyway?  Why a transcontinental system?  Is there any special reason for it?”  My answer was, “Why the transcontinental railway?”  Well, “But,” he says, “this transcontinental road is designed chiefly for joy riders, tourists, who want to go over the country.”  And I asked:  “Are the railroads used for that purpose at all?  Do joy riders go on them as well?  And why should they not?  What is the object and purpose of government unless it is to make the country generally more desirable and easier to live in?”

The CHAIRMAN.  I would like to state for the benefit of those present that the consideration given these measures by the committee is not for pleasure-seekers, but for the commerce of the country, and the development of that commerce, and the quick and ready marketing of the products that are raised in the country.

Judge LOWE.  Absolutely so.

The CHAIRMAN.  So that they will reach the market at the earliest possible date; it is the commercial side and development –

Judge LOWE.  Oh, yes, yes.  But if a gentleman of leisure wanted to get in an automobile and ride around over the country, I do not think any serious criticism ought to be made of him for that; you are altogether right about the transportation of commerce.

With that comment, the hearing adjourned.  [Good Roads, pages 193-201]

On June 18, 1920, the National Old Trails Road Association printed a synopsis of Judge Lowe's statement to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads on the Townsend Bill.  At the end of the synopsis, Judge Lowe added a statement:

To the Members of Our Organization:

To this great purpose I have freely given the best years of my life, and now propose, in the near future, turning it over to younger and better hands, confidently assured of the early success of all our labors.

J. M. Lowe

As in the past, Judge Lowe stayed on.  [National Old Trail [sic] Road Association, June 18, 1920, Vertical File, FHWA Research Library, page 6]