Promoting the Road During a War

Charting the Road

In mid-1920, the Automobile Club of Southern California dispatched two men to chart complete strip maps of the National Old Trails Road and the Lincoln Highway from the Pacific Coast to the Eastern seaboard.  When “Doug” Rhodes and O. W. “Ollie” Lewis “cut the switch on their dusty roadster in front of the Automobile Club on July 12th, they had completed the arduous task of charting two complete transcontinental highways, “the biggest job ever undertaken by a single motoring organization.”  After a month of marshalling the data, “the map making department of the club started on the task of turning out the strip maps which will show every turn in the road from the Atlantic to the Pacific.”  Rhodes and Lewis also checked the north-south connection between the two routes in Colorado and checked the signs the club had erected. 

Overall, from May 17 to July 14, they traveled 8,881 miles which, leaving out rest days, gave an average of 217 miles a day.  Their best day had been on July 4 when they “succeeded in reeling off 422 miles on the fine dirt roads of Colorado.”  They reported:

Road conditions, as a general thing, they found to be better than ever before all along the route, particularly in the West.  Much new road has been built and the old road has been improved.  Extensive improvements on both the National Old Trails and the Lincoln Highway are now in progress in the middle west.  On the former route, from East
St. Louis to the Illinois state line and about 100 miles in Indiana are being paved so that detours prevail in this region. 

All the work was expected to be completed in time for the 1921 spring touring rush:

The National Old Trails through Kansas may also be paved as all the counties in the state have been signed up for concrete roads but the high cost of material and labor and the condition of the bond market has forced the postponement of the improvements.  From all indications, according to Rhodes and Lewis, the transcontinental highways in the spring of 1921 will be better than ever before and, assisted by the complete strip maps and the Automobile Club of Southern California road signs which extend from Kansas City and Omaha to Los Angeles the motorist, like the wayfaring man of scriptural reference, will have real difficulty in losing way.

(The Lincoln Highway terminus was in San Francisco, but the Arrowhead Trail provided a link between the highway at Salt Lake City and the National Old Trails Road at Barstow.)

The crew found that signposting methods “in the East and Middle West are certainly not up to the standard of the Pacific Coast, most of the various highways being identified by varicolored strips on the telegraph poles which line the way”:

When you come to a cross road where two or three highways meet the telegraph poles look like a cross between a barber pole and a stick of cheap peppermint candy and a motorist who is color-blind is absolutely out of luck.  Ouija boards would come in mighty handy when trying to get in and out of many Eastern cities also, Pittsburg [sic] and Jersey City being two high powered examples of puzzling problems for the visiting motorists.

One feature that is bothersome and sometimes very painful to transcontinental tourists is the fact that every one of the ‘steen thousand towns and villages along the route has a different speed law and a different “No parking” ordinance.  As a general rule, however, the police are extremely courteous to travelers and cause them as little trouble as possible.  There are however some exceptions which make it advisable to take things very easy in passing through all towns en route.

The log compiled by the two-man crew “affords an example of the time that can be made and gives all the very latest information on the road conditions on both the Lincoln Highway and the National Old Trails”:

The first day out of Los Angeles found the travelers burning the Eastward trail over the smooth boulevards of Southern California, up the long grade over Cajon pass to the summit where they left behind them the concrete and asphalt of California for the dirt roads of the desert.  An early start and good consistent driving found them at Goff’s [west of Needles], 293 miles from Los Angeles, that night.

The second day, May 18th, was one of rougher going although the roads were uniformly good dirt.  The only stretch of bad road was found in Nelson’s Canyon where there was some five miles of pretty rough sledding even for hardened drivers like these.  A comparatively short run of 191 miles by way of Topock brought them into Seligman that night.

At Seligman, Rhodes and Lewis split up temporarily and saved themselves four days.  It was necessary to go up to the Grand Canyon and then to signpost the two optional roads between Holbrook and Albuquerque, one of which goes via Gallup and the other by Springerville.  To avoid retracing their tire tracks, Rhodes took the machine on the Grand Canyon and Gallup route while Lewis went over the Springerville road in another machine provided by a member of the club.

Rhodes went from Seligman to the Grand Canyon and back to Flagstaff, then to Winslow, Holbrook and then north via Gallup to Albuquerque.  The Gallup route follows the railroad across the desert through some most interesting Indian country.  Lewis went directly from Seligman via Flagstaff, Winslow and Holbrook and then south over the Springerville road which traverses the timber country and the Continental Divide, taking in the Petrified Forest en route.  Despite some rain the roads were found to be pretty good except for some rocky going between Flagstaff and Winslow.  The rain, however, had put the Rio Grande on a rampage and two bridges were temporarily condemned for traffic but are now alright.

May 24th found the traveling twins reunited at Albuquerque and once more started on their round trip across the country.

They departed the National Old Trails Road for the North and South Highway to the Lincoln Highway by way of Colorado.  On May 29, they left Denver and connected again with the National Old Trails Road at La Junta:

Starting out in Denver in the early morning the car rolled into La Junta, back along the road to Trinidad and then to La Junta once more, a total of 359 miles, all along excellent gravel roads which made the big mileage seem easy.

May 30th took the scout car from La Junta to Kinsley, Kansas, a 265 mile jaunt along roads mostly in fair condition which as a general rule followed the section lines of the region.  Between Oferle and Spearville the roads were very bad due to their use by automobiles while still wet from the recent rains.

The last day of May was spent entirely in the state of Kansas, the club car traveling from Kinsley to McPherson and then making a side trip from McPherson to Lindsbord and Herrington and return to McPherson, the side trip being over a road which may possibly be added to the National Old Trails highway in the future.

The first day of June was one that Rhodes and Lewis will not forget for a long time.  They pulled out of McPherson early in the morning and set sail eastward with full speed ahead.  They hoped to keep in front of a rainstorm which they had spotted coming out of the west but one of those rapid Kansas breezes blew the storm up on them faster than their eight cylinders could push them along and after bucking mud for several sticky miles they stopped off at Admire, Kansas, a metropolis of the great western plains where the entire population, all three of ‘em, helped stow the car away in a barn.  The mileage for the day was 116 and some of them were very long miles.

The remaining miles between Admire and Kansas City were covered through good old gumbo mud on June 2nd and there the travelers laid over a week to complete their notes on the trip and get the mass of information in shape for use later.

The second leg of the eastward journey was taken up on June 10th with a 262-mile run from Kansas City to Wright City, Missouri.  The roads were found to be in splendid shape most of the way, a four mile stretch near Mineola being the chief exception.  The 30 miles immediately east of Kansas City were a boulevard and from that point on good dirt, gravel and rock roads led to the point where the Missouri River is crossed by ferry at Booneville.  That barge is a great convenience and operates between 7 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. The charge is $1.08 per trip.

The brief hop from Wright City to St. Louis, 84 miles, was covered on June 11th and on June 12th the encounter with the detours began with the leg from St. Louis east, 215 miles to Terre Haute, Indiana.  The National Old Trails across Illinois is being paved and is all closed.  All travel going east crosses the Mississippi River over Eads Bridge and then goes via Collinsville, and Edwardsville, following the Big Four route through Livingston to Staunton.  Then it goes via Mount Olive, Hillsboro, Pana, Ashmore and Paris to Terre Haute.  All of this paving work should be finished by next spring so that the 1921 tourist should have better going.

Across Indiana and part of Ohio from Terre Haute to Dayton was the 194 mile jaunt made on June 13th.  The rock and gravel roads amount practically to boulevards and the going is splendid.  The same thing holds true for the following day’s run from Dayton to Wheeling, W. Va., a jaunt of 199 miles.  The gravel was occasionally relieved by a stretch of Ohio’s characteristic brick pavement and frequent detours because of road construction were encountered.

June 15th and its 177 miles from Wheeling to Hancock, Maryland gave the travelers groves of trees extremely reminiscent of California.  The National Old Trails all the way east from Columbus may practically be classified as boulevard.  Long stretches of pavement and brick road prevail and are extremely good.  The 100 miles from Hancock to Baltimore was run off in a few hours on the next day and the touring twins spent a day and a half in the metropolis of Maryland recuperating from their long trip.

June 18th was a busy day for the travelers with a trip from Baltimore to Washington, D.C., the official terminus of the National Old Trails, back to Baltimore via Frederick and then on to Philadelphia.

From there, they crossed the country on the Lincoln Highway.  [“Strip Maps from the Atlantic to the Pacific,” Touring Topics, August 1920, pages 12-16, 31, 34]

The Platforms

In June, the country’s two main parties chose their presidential and vice presidential nominees.

In Chicago, the Republican Party chose Senator Warren G. Harding, a newspaper editor and former State official from Blooming Grove, Ohio, as the nominee.  Governor Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts was Senator Harding’s running mate.

The party’s platform covered many topics, but Senator Townsend could not have been happy about its good roads plank endorsing the Federal-aid concept:

Public Roads and Highways

We favor liberal appropriations in co-operation with the States for the construction of highways, which will bring about a reduction in transportation costs, better marketing of farm products, improvement in rural postal delivery, as well as meet the needs of military defense.

In determining the proportion of Federal aid for road construction among the States, the sums lost in taxation to the respective States by the setting apart of large portions of their area as forest reservations should be considered as a controlling factor.

The Democrats, meeting in San Francisco, chose Ohio Governor Cox as their presidential nominee.  He was a newspaper publisher and one-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  His running mate was Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, a cousin of former President Theodore Roosevelt.

The party’s platform included a plank on “Improved Highways” that endorsed the Federal-aid highway program.  In part, it read:

The Federal Road Act of 1916, enacted by a Democratic Congress, represented the first systematic effort of the government to insure the building of an adequate system of roads in this country.  The act, as amended, has resulted in placing the movement for improved highways on a progressive and substantial basis in every State in the Union and in bringing under actual construction more than 13,000 miles of roads suited to the traffic needs of the communities in which they are located.

We favor a continuance of the present Federal aid plan under existing Federal and State agencies, amended so as to include as one of the elements in determining the ratio in which the several states shall be entitled to share in the fund, the area of any public lands therein.

Federal-Aid Road Work, FY 1920

The Federal-aid highway program was funded only through FY 1921.  The final apportionment of $100 million became available on July 1, 1920.  BPR retained 3 percent of the funds for administration of the program.  BPR Chief MacDonald explained:

Under the law the states are required to enter into formal agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture for the construction upon which this is to be used before July 1, 1922.  Any money which is not taken up before that time will be reapportioned among all the states in the same manner in which the original apportionments are made.  All previous apportionments have been taken up in the time allotted, and it is not likely that the states will fail to absorb this last apportionment.  To do so, however, will mean that the states must survey, plan, and let contracts for at least $200,000,000 worth of Federal aid road construction in the next two years.

The States generally paid more than 50 percent of the cost; thus if that practice continued, “this last apportionment may reach $250,000,000.” 

MacDonald added that the State highway departments had been expanded and more efficient since 1915 and were “undoubtedly” able to handle the greater amount of funding:

The states have had four years in which to prepare for the expenditure of the large funds which now become available.  They expect to be able to handle them.  What is of greater concern to them at this time is the condition which may result if federal appropriations are permitted to lapse.  The highway departments should know at least a year in advance what funds are to be available in order that plans may be made for future construction.  Unless, therefore, further federal action is taken in the coming year, the states will be left in doubt as to the future policy of the government, and the amount of money they must be prepared to expend.  Such a contingency would involve a serious setback to the progress of road construction, and should be avoided by early congressional action.  [MacDonald, Thomas H., “$100,000,000 Fund Available to Aid State Road Building; Big Federal Appropriations,” Better Roads and Streets, September-October 1920, page 297]

On October 15, 1920, BPR Chief MacDonald released his annual report covering the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 1920.  Although the war had ended in November 1919, the disruptions to roadbuilding during the war years had not ended, as MacDonald made clear on the first page:

During the fiscal year 1920 the execution of all classes of construction work has been greatly delayed by the most disadvantageous economic conditions which this country has faced in many decades.

Railroad congestion, strikes, and labor and material shortages, resulting in high prices of these essentials of construction, have combined throughout the country to delay work which had been undertaken, and to discourage the country to delay work which had been undertaken, and to discourage the undertaking of any but the most important new projects.  The high prices of labor and material have sent construction costs skyward, and the work which has been launched in spite of conditions has necessarily been curtailed to the limit of the funds available.

Highway construction has perhaps been more adversely affected than any other class of work.  After the war there was a great public demand for the improvement of roads, which had been seriously damaged in many instances by the augmented traffic incident to the prosecution of the war.  It appeared that the release of labor from war activities and the return of men from the military service would provide an abundance of labor.  Indeed, it was thought, for a time, that highway work should be increased to provide employment for returned soldiers, if for no other reason.  Highway programs were accordingly greatly expanded, and in accomplishing this result the appropriation by Congress of the additional sum of $200,000,000 for Federal aid in February, 1919, played an important part.

The army of laborers which was expected to apply for the work did not materialize.  On the contrary, there has been at all times a distinct shortage of labor to carry out the work planned, and wages during the past fiscal year have reached the highest levels attained in the history of the country.  Whereas, in 1917, competent labor could be secured in various parts of the country for from $1.50 to $3 per day, the corresponding wages this fiscal year were from $3 to $5 for a shorter day’s work.

In proportion to the demand there was also a pronounced scarcity of the materials of construction.  Sand, gravel, stone, and cement, materials commonly used in road work, increased in price between 1917 and 1920 by from 50 to 100 per cent.  Naturally, these increases in the costs of the essentials of construction have been reflected in the prices paid to contractors for road work . . . .

In view of the fact that the funds available for road construction are largely limited by statute or by the returns from taxation, and on account of the high prices prevailing, a majority of the States this year have deliberately withheld work, the plans for which have been completed, until such time as they could obtain a greater return upon the expenditure.

No small part of the reason for the high contract prices is attributable to the uncertainty of rail deliveries of material.  Contractors who have been induced to enter the highway field in larger numbers than ever before, and who have invested large capital in plant and equipment designed to expedite construction, have lost heavily by reason of the failure of the railroads to make deliveries of material in accordance with anticipated schedules; and they have advanced their prices on subsequent contracts in the attempt to recoup their previous losses and to provide against similar contingencies in the future.

Despite these and other “untoward economic conditions,” the number of Federal-aid projects was about 25 percent greater than in any year since enactment of the 1916 Act, “attributable in no small degree to the improvements in methods of administration effected during the year.”  He reported:

During the year a total of 1,670 project statements submitted by the States were approved by the bureau, as compared with 1,316 projects approved from 1916 up to the beginning of the year.  The projects approved involved 16,673 miles of road as compared with 12,720 miles which had been previously approved; and the Federal aid requested on these roads amounted to $109,830,366, which was more than twice as great as the total amount of $54,714,219 requested during the three years 1917, 1918, and 1919.

Agreements with State highway departments were executed during the fiscal year to cover 1,286 projects, almost three times the largest number executed in any one fiscal year, and nearly twice the total number executed prior to the beginning of the year.  The estimated cost of the projects covered by these agreements amounted to $197,571,626, of which amount there was set aside in the Treasury $85,906,556 as Federal aid.  At the close of the fiscal year 1919 there had been executed 677 of such agreements, involving an estimated cost of $56,418,763 and an allowance of Federal aid amounting to $23,931,618.  Thus, at the close of the fiscal year 1920 a total of 1,963 had been executed to cover projects involving 15,178 miles, at a total estimated cost of $253,990,389, including $109,838,174 of Federal aid.  Of the funds apportioned, therefore, there remained at the end of the fiscal year an unallotted balanced of $59,911,826.

MacDonald also reported on the impact of the change in the definition of “rural post road” contained in the February 1919 appropriation act.  Federal-aid funds could now be used, as he described, on “any public road a major portion of which is now used, or can be used, or forms a connecting link, not to exceed 10 miles in length of any road or roads now or hereafter used for the transportation of the United States mails.”  He explained:

In addition to seeing that the roads for which aid has been requested by the States comply with this statutory requirement, the bureau has also made an investigation in connection with each project submitted to ascertain that the road in question is of sufficient general importance to warrant the expenditure of Federal-aid funds in its construction.

The Federal-aid funds will not be expended entirely for so-called national roads.  A large part of the money will be expended in improving the roads which radiate from market and shipping points into the surrounding agricultural country, the class of roads which in the last analysis are most closely identified with the development of the country.

In many of the States, particularly those of the East which have highway departments of long standing, the majority of the trunkline roads have already been improved.  In these States Federal aid is given to assist in filling the gaps which remain in the trunk systems, and for the construction of the more important lateral roads.  On the other hand, there is a decided tendency in the younger States of the West to utilize their apportionments of Federal aid on trunk-line highways of national importance.  As an indication of the extent to which this policy governs, there was at the end of the fiscal year a total of 8,620 miles of Federal-aid road which had been approved, and which constituted parts of the several transcontinental trails, such as the Lincoln Highway, the Bankhead Highway, the Dixie Highway, the Jackson Highway, and others.  This mileage represented 30 per cent of the aggregate length of all Federal-aid roads approved, and $58,745,359, or 36 per cent, of all Federal aid approved.  Eighty per cent of the mileage in Indiana is included in one of these marked roads, 86 per cent in Nevada, 54 per cent in Arizona, 50 per cent in Washington, while in Pennsylvania and New York, which have already constructed most of the roads of this category, the mileage represents 15 and 17 per cent, respectively, of the whole mileage of Federal-aid roads.  In thus referring to the mileage of our roads which is included in these selected routes, it is not intended to convey the impression that such routes constitute a desirable or complete system of national roads.  Indeed, it is safe to say that no one of such roads is laid down at all points in the most suitable location.  In many instances we believe that sections of our roads which do not fall on the lines of these routes, will better serve the transcontinental traveller than the selected routes, but in the main these widely advertised roads do follow the natural lines of travel.

In order to provide a more rational basis for coordinated work on the part of the States, the bureau, in conference with the advisory committee of State highway officials, has initiated plans for a Nation-wide survey of the roads of the country, and a classification of all highways in respect to their importance and character of service.  The survey when completed will doubtless furnish the necessary data for the establishment of a classified system of highways similar to the French system.  [MacDonald, Thomas H., Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads, Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture, for the Year Ended June 30, 1920, pages 491-497]

In these and other comments, Chief MacDonald made clear he was in favor of the Federal-aid highway program, not Federal construction of a national road system.  As 1921 began, with a new President to take office on March 4, the battle between Federal-aid advocates and national road supporters was about to come to a conclusion.  Both sides agreed they wanted a bill approved by June 30, 1921, when current authorizations for the Federal-aid highway program came to an end.

The New President

In the November 1920 presidential election, Senator Harding prevailed and would take office on March 4, 1921.

When the 66th Congress returned to Washington for a final short session on December 6, with Republicans now in charge of both Houses, a priority was continuation of funding for roads that was to end on June 30, 1921.  The House passed an extension on February 7, 1921, and sent the bill to the Senate, which assigned it to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.  Chairman Townsend refused to send the bill to the floor for consideration.  Attempts to add the House bill to the Senate Post Office or Agriculture appropriation bills failed.  Similarly, a bill to establish a sliding scale for the State share under the Federal-aid highway program for States with large amounts of Federal public land failed.

Congress adjourned the 66th Congress on March 4 without resolving the question of Federal-aid versus Federal construction or extending the Federal-aid program.
With a new President awaiting inauguration, the American Road Builders’ Association (ARBA) asked about his views on roads.  President-elect Harding, who had campaigned on a “return to normalcy,” replied by a letter that was read to ARBA’s annual convention, held at the Coliseum in Chicago, Illinois, on February 9 through 12:

Our civilization depends on communication and transportation, and as it becomes increasingly complex, that dependence increases.  Every great community is held together by its means of transportation and so vast a country as ours is the more in need of ample facilities.  Our country roads we have not kept pace with.  The development of other transportation – railroads, waterways, our new merchant marine – cannot be of fullest utility unless good roads supplement them.  The country road bears the same relation to these that the capillary circulation does to the system of veins and arteries in the human organism.

In recent years there has been nation-wide realization of the road problem.  We need to devise and adapt means, financial and engineering, to solve it.  I believe we shall progress greatly, in the years of peace and prosperity which I am confident lie ahead of us, toward this solution, and such organizations as your own will contribute much to that end.  [“The Eighteenth Annual Convention of the American Road Builders’ Association, Good Roads, February 16, 1921, page 95]

Although positive, the message did not address the debate between advocates of Federal-aid and national roads.

Five weeks after the inauguration of President Harding, The New York Times reported on April 9 that he “has been for some time making a quiet, but thorough investigation of the highway improvement situation, particularly of various road projects which have been allotted money from the Treasury of the United States”:

The President, it can be stated, is thoroughly alive to the seriousness of this road problem and he will deal with it in the message which he will read to Congress next Tuesday.  In his inquiry into the situation the President has considered the matter purely as a national affair in which all the people of the country who use roads or pay taxes have an interest.

In his study of the highway problem the disclosure which impressed the President more than any other phase of the question was the fact that enormous sums of money have been expended on roads without any thought of the permanency of those roads.  If the President has his way not one dollar of Federal money will be applied in the future to any road, the proper and economical maintenance of which has not been provided for.

The President considers it nothing less than folly for the Government to contribute money toward road projects, which in numerous instances go to pieces in two or three years, leaving to the people a tax inheritance that involves large bond issues.

On April 8, President Harding “was in conference for some time today with Senator Townsend of Michigan, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Postoffices [sic] and Post Roads, which committee will draft the road bill which will be introduced in the next Congress, and which is expected to eliminate serious defects in the present law.”  The article pointed out that in the last Congress, Senator Townsend, not yet chairman, had “led the successful fight” against the $100 million appropriation approved in the House:

In his message to Congress the President will make known what he considers should be the highway policy of this Government, and that will be a policy in which the cheap road built with the proceeds of high taxes and without any provision being made for its maintenance cannot be allotted money from the Federal Treasury.

The President is an enthusiastic advocate of good roads that are really good roads, properly constructed and properly maintained.

It is the view of the President that the Federal Government should not be saddled with the maintenance cost of highways, but that this should be borne by the several States benefited by the roads.  In many States the license fees for motor vehicle owners are alone sufficient, the President has been informed, to pay the maintenance cost of the highways . . . .

In conversation with visitors today the President was quoted by one of the visitors as having said that some of the roads to which he has given careful consideration have cost more than $25,000 per mile, which, he explained, is higher than the cost of the finest railroad.

The referenced speech was to be delivered in a special session of the 67th Congress that President Harding had called for shortly after his inauguration on March 4, 1921.  The purpose was to address the post-war depression that had lingered during the rough transition from war to peace.  Shortly before the speech, auto industry advocates of a Federal Highway Commission met with the President.  They pointed out that BPR’s budget far exceeded the budget for the rest of the Department of Agriculture.  Roy Chapin, who headed the delegation, said that the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce opposed continuance of the Federal-aid highway program in its present form because he believed the public interest was not fully served by the large expenditures for the program.

The President was understood to be concerned about highway maintenance, and would insist on a strong provision on the subject in future highway legislation.  In his view, the entire proceeds from vehicle license fees should be devoted to maintenance.

Chapin and his committee also met with Chief MacDonald, Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. Wallace, and Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon.  The meeting prompted MacDonald to outline his position:  

The task today is to provide highway service; we cannot afford to wait for the construction of new and modern types of highways.  The maintenance should be carried forward now on roads improved and unimproved.  The returns will more than compensate the cost.  If there is one problem which the road builders of the United States as a whole must learn it is that of highway maintenance.  The continuity and long radius of operation of the motor vehicle require a development of maintenance organizations and maintenance expenditures not heretofore required; but in the same fact lies, because of the service rendered, the justification for the expense involved.  We cannot neglect the simple methods of maintenance which have demonstrated their utility.  The harrow, the road drag, the blade grader, have a high degree of utility in combination with the motor truck and gas tractor.  One state engineer remarked that the widespread use of these simpler maintenance tools in his state saved his whole program of higher cost construction because of the better highway service provided over a large mileage.   ["Want Federal Highway Commission Created," Engineering News-Record, April 14, 1921, page 656]

On April 12, the new President addressed a joint session of Congress.  Biographer Francis Russell stated that, "The President looked vigorous, assured.  His voice was not as precise as Wilson's, but it was warmer . . . ."

President Harding's address to the joint session began:

Mr. Speaker, Vice President, and Members of the Congress, you have been called in extraordinary session to give your consideration to national problems far too pressing to be long neglected.  We face our tasks of legislation and administration amid conditions as difficult as our Government has ever contemplated.  Under our political system the people of the United States have charged the new Congress and the new administration with the solution – the readjustments, reconstruction, and restoration which must follow in the wake of war.

It may be regretted that we were so illy prepared for war's aftermath, so little made ready to return to the ways of peace, but we are not to be discouraged.  Indeed, we must be the more firmly resolved to undertake our work with high hope, and invite every factor in our citizenship to join in the effort to find our normal, onward way again.

Turning to specifics, he began with "our problems at home, even though some phases of them are inseparably linked with our foreign relations."  Russell summarized the domestic goals for the session:

As a message it was the expected declaration of Republican administration policy, containing no surprises.  Harding called for a cutting of government expenditures, lowering of taxes, and the repeal of the excess-profits tax, "mature consideration" of permanent tariff legislation, a lowering of railroad rates and promotion of agriculture interests.  One of his most important requests – several times rejected by earlier congressmen – was for the national budget system [i.e., to coordinate financial activities]. His most cherished projects were a "great merchant marine" and a Department of Public Welfare.  There was applause, then silence when he told the legislators that "Congress ought to wipe out the stain of barbaric lynching."  [Russell, Francis, The Shadow of Blooming Grove:  Warren G. Harding and His Times, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, page 456]

The President also discussed several transportation issues, which he said were of "great interest to both the producer and consumer – indeed, all our industrial and commercial life, from agriculture to finance."  After discussing problems related to the railroads, he turned to the highways:

Transportation over the highways is little less important [than rail transportation], but the problems relate to construction and development, and deserve your most earnest attention, because we are laying a foundation for a long time to come, and the creation is very difficult to visualize in its great possibility.

The highways are not only feeders for the railroads and afford relief from their local burdens, they are actually lines of motor traffic in interstate commerce.  They are the smaller arteries of the larger portion of our commerce, and the motor car has become an indispensable instrument in our political, social, and industrial life.

There is begun a new era in highway construction, the outlay for which runs far into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Bond issues by road districts, counties, and States mount to enormous figures, and the country is facing such an outlay that it is vital that every effort be directed against wasted effort and unjustifiable expenditures.

The Federal Government can place no inhibition on the expenditure in the several States; but, since Congress has embarked upon a policy of assisting the States in highway improvement, wisely, I believe, it can assert a wholly becoming [sic] influence in shaping the road policy.

With the principle of Federal participation acceptably established, probably never to be abandoned, it is important to exert Federal influence in developing comprehensive plans looking to the promotion of commerce and apply our expenditures in the surest way to guarantee a public return for money expended.

Large Federal outlay demands a Federal voice in the program of expenditure.  Congress can not justify a mere gift from the Federal purse to the several States, to be prorated among counties for road betterment.  Such a course will invite abuses which it were better to guard against in the beginning.

The laws governing Federal aid should be amended and strengthened.  The Federal agency of administration should be elevated to the importance and vested with authority comparable to the work before it.  And Congress ought to prescribe conditions to Federal appropriations which will necessitate a consistent program of uniformity which will justify the Federal outlay.

I know of nothing more shocking than the millions of public funds wasted in improved highways, wasted because there is no policy of maintenance.  The neglect is not universal, but it is very near it. There is nothing the Congress can do more effectively to end this shocking waste than condition all Federal aid on provisions for maintenance. [Applause.]  Highways, no matter how generous the outlay for construction, can not be maintained without patrol and constant repair.  Such conditions insisted upon in the grant of Federal aid will safeguard the public which pays and guard the Federal Government against political abuses which tend to defeat the very purposes for which we authorize Federal expenditure.  [Address of the President, Congressional Record – House, April 12, 1921, page 169-173]

Long-distance road advocates were initially encouraged by the message.  The headline of an article in the May 1921 issue of American Motorist summed up the view:  "President's Message to Congress Brings Cheer to Roads Advocates."  The article began:

For the first time in many administrations, reaching back to the days of the Old Cumberland road, the subject of highways received real attention in a message to Congress, when President Harding, April 12, in person addressed the Sixty-seventh session.

Quoting extensively from the message, the article summarized:

It should be reasonable to assume that President Harding favors a Federal commission or board; a requirement that the State itself should function as such in roads [sic] building; and that no money from the national treasury should be expended upon any road for which upkeep is not definitely provided.

Since Senator Charles E. Townsend, chairman of the Senate Committee on Post-offices [sic] and Post Roads, has discussed good roads on various occasions with President Harding, who called him to the White House on the day before the delivery of the message, it is not difficult to understand why the highways section of the message accords in great degree with the opinions that have been expressed by the senior Senator from Michigan.  ["President's Message to Congress Brings Cheer to Roads Advocates," American Motorist, May 1921, page 36]

Engineering News-Record was impressed that the President had devoted more space to highways "than was ever before devoted to the subject in a Presidential address" and thought his statements were "sound wherever his meaning is not open to debate."  As for the key issue, the magazine said:

It is difficult to know, however, just what the President's position is on a federal aid versus a "national" system of highways.  We take it that he is satisfied to allow the present federal aid method of appropriation to stand.  Yet there is enough indefiniteness about his words to wonder whether he has leanings in the other direction.

The ambiguity was in such phrases as "the laws governing federal aid should be amended and strengthened" and "the federal agency of administration should be elevated to the importance and vested with authority comparable to the work before it."  The magazine asked:

The automobile interests have discussed with him the creation of a federal highway commission.  Was that in his mind or has he some scheme of putting in more prominent place the present Bureau of Public Roads?

The magazine summarized the "considerable difference of opinion among highway officials" on this point:

Some think that this means that the Secretary of Agriculture should be given broader powers, some are of the opinion that the President had in mind the creation of a Department of Public Works, to which the Bureau of Roads would be transferred, while some admitted that it looks like an endorsement of a federal highway commission.

For now, all the magazine could say with certainty was that having the President express interest in the highway situation was "worth while."  A later, clearer expression of his views was desirable.  ["President Harding on Highways" and "State Officials Confer on Highway Policies," Engineering News-Record, April 21, pages 687, 696]

An editorial in Good Roads stated that President Harding’s discussion of road work “augurs well for the administration of federal aid during the next four years”:

The country is committed to a gigantic road program, including federal participation, which, as President Harding expresses it, is “acceptably established, probably never to be abandoned.”  If federal aid works out as state aid has – and there is every reason to expect that it will – this means that Congress will be asked for larger and larger appropriations, which will be made if Congress is convinced that public sentiment is unmistakably behind the demand.

In that case, “there hardly could be any honest difference of opinion as to the necessity of adequate administrative machinery within the Federal Government.”  In short, current law should be strengthened and, as the President put it, “The Federal agency of administration should be elevated to the importance and vested with authority comparable to the work before it.”  To avoid the potential for abuse, the revised Federal law “must be drawn most carefully, every possible safeguard being thrown around the allotment of funds.”  Otherwise, the reputation of Federal-aid highway funding would sink “to the pork barrel level of rivers and harbors and public buildings legislation.” [“Roads Discussed in President’s Message,” Good Roads, April 20, 1921, pages 219-220]

On April 14, AASHO’s executive committee joined with Secretary Wallace and Chief MacDonald to meet with President Harding.  The Baltimore Sun reported that the committee assured the President of their support for strong assurances on maintenance.  They “told him of the gratification of the organization that he had taken so firm a stand and pledged him their support”:

The committee advised the President that a bill now is being framed, designed to tighten the requirements upon the States as to maintenance, and will be offered in Congress shortly.  Mr. Harding said he appreciated the support of his views and the steps taken by the State roads officials’ organization and would be glad to co-operate in favor of a sound measure . . . .

After the interview, some of the State officials expressed the view that Congress should make another substantial appropriation for Federal-aid roads in the present session.  The allotments made under the $75,000,000 appropriation of 1916 and the $200,000,000 appropriation of 1919 both expire with the close of the current fiscal year on June 30; although any State is permitted two years, after the end of any fiscal year, in which to use the sum allotted it for that year.

Some of the States claim that they have used their money and will be halted in their work unless another appropriation is made shortly.  [“Highway Officials O.K. Harding’s Road Policy, The Baltimore Sun, April 15, 1921, page 2]

Fred R. White, in the speech mentioned earlier, recalled the meeting:

By the spring of 1921 something of a test had been given to the Federal-aid Road Act.  As would be expected in an initial measure of this nature, it had many faults of detail although the basic principle was sound.  It was evident that this measure should be largely re-written to iron out rough places and provide a smooth-working administrative machine.

In April 1921 the Legislative Committee met with Mr. Markham [AASHO’s legislative representative in Washington] and drew up a new Federal-aid road bill . . . .  The committee then met with the Secretary of Agriculture and secured his concurrence in the proposed bill.  At the suggestion of the Secretary, the committee met with the President of the United States and presented its suggestions and programs to him.  To their delight the committee members found that the President’s views were very largely in harmony with the measure which they had prepared.  [White, page 150]

William C. Markham, who was on leave from his job as Secretary-Director of the new Kansas State Highway Department, recalled the meeting in his autobiography:

When in April of 1921 our Committee met to draw up and seek passage of a new and enlarged Federal-aid road bill, we found President Harding to be very much road-minded. He encouraged us to go ahead with our plans but very earnestly warned us that unless we placed a section in the law which required (with teeth) that the States must properly maintain the roads when once constructed with Federal aid, that he would veto the bill.  We placed in the bill a section which takes away from any State which does not properly maintain roads built with a Federal fund assistance, any additional Federal aid, and that section (set up by the States themselves) is law to this day.  [Markham, William Colfax, Autobiography, Randell Inc., 1946, page 150]

The problem was that President Harding’s comments were ambiguous, as The New York Times pointed out in an article that began, “The attitude of the Harding Administration toward national highway improvement is expected to raise it to one of the leading issues of the day.”  Although “extension of the system of national highways” was a need of the first order,” his biggest focus was on highway maintenance.  He was silent on whether he supported a National Highway Commission to build a national highway system, or simply favored bolstering the Federal-aid highway program.

The Times expected that Congress would undertake a “thorough investigation . . . of the whole subject of highway improvement in the United States,” especially on appropriate maintenance issues:

In any legislation enacted there will probably be vital changes in the governmental machine that deals with good roads.  President Harding has informed Congress that “the Federal agency of administration should be elevated to the importance and vested with the authority comparable to the work before it.”  The present Federal agency dealing with highway improvement is the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Agriculture.  The funds spent by it for road development are greater than the rest of expenditures for the entire Department of Agriculture.  President Harding has not disclosed whether he favors the separation of the bureau from the Department of Agriculture and making it an independent branch of the Government, or whether he will favor the creation of a Federal Highway Commission independent of any branch of the Government, but under the control of the Executive.

Senator Townsend, the article mentioned, planned to reintroduce his bill soon, with a Federal Highway Commission at its center.  The article quoted the Senator’s recent statement:

The question of good roads is of supreme importance, perhaps second in importance to the problem of the transportation facilities of the country, and is growing larger every day.

The man is very blind who cannot see somewhat of the future of the motor truck.  Highway improvement has been given a new interest since the almost general use of the auto truck.  Hundreds of millions of dollars are now expended every year by States and their sub-divisions on road improvement.  Many of the States have no system of roadbuilding, however, with a result that much of the money invested has been wasted.

The Federal Government already had embarked on a program of construction and maintenance of roads:

The matter for Congress now to decide is how Federal money should be invested in highway improvements.  It is clear in my mind that this money should be spent only on interstate roads.  These roads are the most important in every State, and to the extent of Federal money invested they relieve the State of a part of its heaviest burden.

He objected to the current “pork-barrel” system of Federal-aid that benefited no one but politicians. 

After pointing out that BPR controlled two-thirds of all expenditures by the Department of Agriculture, Senator Townsend said:

It is clear to me that the subject of highways is too big a matter to be handled by a bureau of any department.  It will soon be as large a subject as that of the railroads, which is handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

It is none too early to establish a Federal Highway Commission and invest it with the power to lay out through lines across the States and to say how and where roads shall be built and maintained.  I am hopeful that Congress will be willing to pass a law to accomplish these ends.

Better system of maintenance is absolutely essential and every State which receives Federal money should put up an equal amount for the Federal-aid roads and should not be permitted to pro-rate this money among its counties. 

The country needed a system of primary roads but “no real headway can be made until such system has been established.”  He “heartily” favored a Federal role, and believed that public money should not “be invested which would be of greater benefit to the public than in this enterprise if it is properly invested with safeguards.”  His statement concluded:

The question is whether the Federal Government will proceed in a broad-gauged, enlightened and scientific way, or whether we can justify a “pork-barrel” measure which will not result in permanent good roads that serve the public . . . .

One of the chief shortcomings of the Congressional attitude toward federal aid for highway improvement has been the fact that most members of Congress, particularly in the House, have taken their own “locality” view of the situation rather than a national one.  The overwhelming desire among the so-called “pork-barrel” members has been to have Federal money spent on good roads pro-rated on county projects from which the member expected to derive political influence or advantage.  Under the existing Federal act, Government funds spent on the fifty-fifty basis for State road construction have been pro-rated so as to provide for much county road construction.  Opponents of this policy have contended that it has resulted, in numerous instances, in the construction of a patch-work and unconnected system of country roads.  [“Harding’s Roads Issue,” The New York Times, April 17, 1921, page 87]

D.A.R.’s 1921 Congress

When the D.A.R. met in Washington in April 1921, Mrs. William H. Talbott, chair of the National Old Trails Road Committee, reported on the committee’s very active year.  She began by calling attention to the roads linked in the National Old Trails Road:  Braddock’s Road, the Old Cumberland Road, a Boone’s Lick Road, the Santa Fe Trail, the Kearney Trail:

These old trails, in their order, marked the progress of American civilization from East to West, from Atlantic to Pacific; and they form one continuous system which is now known as the National Old Trails Road.

This is the only clearly defined, well-established ocean to ocean highway, recognized and approved by the Congress of the United States, which for years made appropriations for its establishment as a highway, and it is this system of highways which the National Old Trails Road Committee of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the old National Old Trails Road Association stand pledged to see built and signed through its entire length.

We cannot think of rebuilding and signing this old road without being overcome by the memory of other days; those far-off days when there were few comforts, and the bare fact of living brought our ancestors face to face with almost insurmountable difficulties, tragedies on every side; yet the pioneer, nothing daunted, never faltered until every obstacle had been conquered, the country explored, its beauties revealed and civilization was planted throughout its full length and breadth.

While we acknowledge the necessity of the modern touch, we must, and do, recognize the value to the individual, to future generations and to the country at large this work will be.  The very comforts and conveniences of living today go far toward making one forget; more than all else will the preservation of the landmarks and their history give to passing generations a proper understanding of what the past has been to others, and what it now means to them.

We will guard the old trails by which men followed the lure of the unknown until it became well known, and we will build a permanent monument to the men and women who had seen the vision and whose sacrifices established our country.

She referred to the bill that the late Representative Borland had introduced and that Representative Zihlman of Maryland had introduced on April 11, 1921, in the new Congress as H.R. 2412, the Daughters of the American Revolution Act, to provide a national ocean-to-ocean highway over the pioneer trails of the Nation.  The bill was referred to the Committee on Roads.

The National Old Trails Road Committee had urged D.A.R.’s local committees to send petitions to their Members of Congress urging passage of the bill, “and even now hundreds of letters and resolutions are in the mails in answer to that appeal.”  She had sent 1,000 letters, bulletins, and cards to State chairmen and regents, including copies of the bill, many with a map of “our road” in support of the bill.

Mrs. Talbott told the convention, “There is good prospect that the bill may be passed at this session, but I desire to emphasize the importance of acting promptly and simultaneously, as only by united effort can we hope to succeed.”  She urged all members to “join in the united and successful effort to have our National Old Trails Road bill passed at this session of Congress and to raise in one year the funds necessary to sign our ocean to ocean highway.”

As important as the work to complete the National Old Trails Road was, she believed that the D.A.R. would one day have an “Old Trails Committee, that would take up the study of other historic trails around the country.  “In fact, investigation of ancient records is bringing to light so much of value that it is hard at times to keep our faces resolutely turned toward the West – to the end of the trail.”  She promised that if the local chapters helped pass H.R. 2412, “I will give you one year on your local work.”  She had access to the first maps of all the States, “upon which the first roads of your State are shown.  Help our committee to complete our national highway this year and you may call on your chairman for such assistance in your local roads as it is possible to furnish.”

She described the road:

The National Old Trails Road is 3,050 miles in length; the road we adopted was first mapped out by the Association and from it we learn of the present very gratifying condition of the road . . . .  The 3,050-mile road is now built, or re-built, entirely from Washington within a few miles of St. Louis, and the balance through Illinois is under contract.  Something over one-third of it is built in Missouri and all of it financed across the balance of the State, and about 800 per cent [sic] of the road is financed across Kansas, all under contract in Colorado, and active progress being made in New Mexico and Arizona; all built or under contract in California.

She reported on progress along the National Old Trails Road:

There are sixteen miles of the National Old Trails Road in West Virginia, and the Wheeling Chapter has placed bronze tablets, 15 x 22 inches, along the route; all being appropriately inscribed.

Ohio, Mrs. Paul E. Nollen, Chairman, says the State Highway Department is re-building the road bed of the Old National Road.  Much of the old highway is in good shape and ultimately the whole will be restored.  The Highway Department assures the Chairman of Ohio that “the fate of the old land-marks, the Milestones along the road, is watched with jealous care; and that each stone will be reclaimed and placed in position as the work of road building goes on.”  Two hundred and thirty-miles run through Ohio.

Illinois, Mrs. William T. Pace, Chairman, reports splendid work on the National Old Trails Road.  The entire road, 172 miles, is complete except a small stretch of sixteen miles, which, according to the State Highway Commission, will be entirely finished inside of this year.

Colorado, Mrs. Georgia M. Ewing, State Chairman, has sent a splendid description of the Old Trails Road through Colorado.  The glory of this road is heightened by some of the most magnificent mountain scenery in the world . . . .  Colorado has 195 miles of the National Old Trails Road.

Mrs. Talbott introduced a resolution for consideration:

Whereas, There has been introduced and is now pending in the House of Representatives, a bill introduced by Mr. Zihlman of Maryland (H. R. No. 2412) known as the “Daughters of the American Revolution Old Trails Act”; and

Whereas, By the provisions of said bill the highway known as the National Old Trails Road is to be rebuilt as an Ocean to Ocean Highway by the respective States through which it passes, and of the uniform width of sixty feet; and

Whereas, Said bill also provides that when that portion of said highway lying within any State has been completed according to the approved specifications, the United States Government guarantees to reimburse to such State one-half of the cost of construction within that State; and<

Whereas, The construction of such a roadway over the historic trails which compose it appear to be a military and postal necessity; and

Whereas, Said road when constructed will stand as the noblest monument which could be erected to the memory of those of our ancestors who as pioneers used those old Trails as the gateway from the East to the West, and who by their daring and suffering gained and retained the great Northwest for our country; and

Whereas, It is believed that if the Daughters of the American Revolution will stand united in the effort to foster and increase the strong sentiment for the construction of this road which already exists, said bill may be passed at the present session of the United States Congress; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Continental Congress assembled earnestly urge upon the Congress of the United States the passage of H. R. 2412, known as the D.A.R. Old Trails Act at the present session of Congress;

Resolved further, That the members of the Continental Congress now present be requested to see or communicate with their Senators and Representatives in Congress during the present week and personally urge upon them the passage of said bill.

Resolved further, That copies of this preamble and Resolution be at once forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The convention adopted the resolution on April 21.  [Proceedings of the Thirtieth Continental Congress of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution,” April 1921, pages 80-88]

Senator Townsend Goes to Work

While the Townsend Bill received had generated considerable attention, Chief MacDonald was orchestrating support for the Federal-aid highway program.  State highway officials, seeing the increased activity under the current program, did not want to lose access to Federal funds. 

Even Engineering News-Record, an original backer of the Highway Industries Association, came out in favor of the Federal-aid highway program in early 1921.  An editorial explained that while the amounts of Federal-aid now being considered might be cut back due to economic conditions, the reduction was less serious than it might be because unexpended Federal-aid funds would still be available.  “The essential feature is to get Congress to recognize by a substantial appropriation the necessity for continuity in the federal-aid scheme,” leaving open the possibility of increased funds when conditions allowed them.

With so many options for the Federal role, “those interested in roads must present a united front.”  More likely, “there will be a confusion of counsel”:

There are those who contend for a national system, built and maintained exclusively with federal funds.  There are the federal-aid advocates, who believe in the present plan.  Another group – composed of farmers – wants federal aid to extend to the county as well as to the state systems.  Still another group would like to see federal appropriations for road work entirely abandoned, which would be nothing short of a calamity.  State highway department organization, generally, has [sic] not yet reached the stage where it can proceed without the backing of federal money.  Should confusion of counsel reach Congress it may be eagerly welcomed by those who want an excuse for making no appropriation.  Under the circumstances the reasonable ground for compromise is on the federal-aid plan as now operated.  It is established.  It has won general confidence.  It has the backing of state highway departments in every part of the country.  It stands midway between the “national” plans and no appropriation whatever. 

Although operation of the Federal-aid highway program had not disclosed any major defects, the one major change needed was a requirement “that the sum equivalent to the federal grant be appropriated by the states themselves and not by the counties”:

In some sixteen or seventeen states the counties, not the states, match the government’s funds.  The result is that all the county money, as a rule, is spent on the primary system, which is essential of state-wide importance, leaving no money for the important secondary system, which should be the county’s main – if not sole – responsibility.  Another serious result of this practice is that cities escape from paying for the road system in fair proportion to the wealth that they gain from an improved state-wide  highway system.  From both standpoints the practice of shifting the financial load to the counties results in unsound highway policy.  This the federal government should not countenance or encourage.  A provision should therefore be introduced in the next appropriation bill making the states themselves appropriate the local quota to match the federal funds.  In some states constitutional amendments will be needed.  But, as shown repeatedly when highway issues have been at stake, such amendments can be secured.  [“Federal Highway Appropriations,” Engineering News-Record, January 13, 1921, pages 50-51]

As expected, Senator Townsend introduced a revised bill, known as the Federal Highway Act (S. 1355), on April 28.  It called for a Post Roads and National Highway Commission to replace BPR.  The President would appoint five commissioners reflecting “a fair representation of the geographical divisions of the United States.”  The initial commissioners would serve staggered terms of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, but after the initial terms, but all their successors would serve 5-year terms with an annual salary of $10,000.  The commissioners, who would choose a chairman each year, were prohibited to engage “in any other business, vocation, or employment, or be interested directly or indirectly in any business enterprise connected with the production or sale of highway materials, or with the construction, maintenance, or operation of other highways, or with any form of organized highway transport.”

The commission was to designate and build an Interstate System:

That the commission shall establish an interstate system of highways, composed of primary interstate roads which shall, by the most practicable routes and with due consideration for the agricultural, commercial, postal and military needs of the Nation afford ingress into and egress from each State and the District of Columbia.  Such interstate system may include highways to and from important water ports, and highways connecting at the border with the main highways in countries adjoining the United States; but shall not include any highway in a municipality having a population, as shown by the latest available Federal census, of five thousand or more, except that portion of any such highway along which, within a distance of one mile, the houses average more than two hundred feet apart.  Provided:  That all highways constructed or reconstructed under the provisions of this Act shall be free from tolls of all kinds; Provided further:  That in any State where such interstate highways or parts thereof have been constructed in accordance with a standard deemed adequate for prevailing traffic by the commission and are maintained as elsewhere provided for in this measure, the commission is authorized and directed to join with the State in the establishment and construction or reconstruction of other highways connecting or correlating with the interstate system. 

All highway construction, including plans, specifications, and estimates “shall be undertaken by the State highway departments subject to the approval of the commission.”  The commission must approve the project statements, after which the State highway department “shall furnish to it surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates therefor as it may require.”  When the commission found that a project had been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications, “it shall cause to be paid to the proper authorities of said State the amount set aside for said project.”  However, the commission “may in its discretion from time to time make payments on such construction or reconstruction as the same progresses.”

S. 1355 also addressed the standards for the interstate system:

That only such durable types of surface and kinds of material shall be adopted for the construction and reconstruction of any highway which is a part of the interstate or coordinating system as will adequately meet the existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions thereof.  The commission shall approve the types of construction and reconstruction and the character of improvement, repair, and maintenance in each case, consideration being given to the type and character which be best suited for each locality and to the probable character and extent of the future traffic.

Roads in the proposed interstate system were to “have a right of way of [sic] width of not less than sixty-six feet and a wearing surface of an adequate width, which shall not be less than twenty feet,” unless the commissioners conclude that “it is impracticable by physical conditions, excessive cost, prevailing or probable traffic requirements, or legal obstacles.”

All powers, duties, and obligations that the Federal Aid Road Act had conferred on the Secretary of Agriculture were to be transferred to the commission within 30 days after the commission was organized, including “the equipment, material, supplies, papers, maps, and documents” collected under the 1916 Act.  In addition, the “commission is hereby authorized to take over any of the employees of the Agriculture Department engaged on public-road work.”  The appropriations now available to the Secretary of Agriculture for highway and forest projects “shall continue in force and effect under the control of the commission in the same manner as they were in force and effect under the control of the Secretary of Agriculture prior to the passage of this Act.” 

The bill appropriated $200 million, divided equally for FYs 1922 and 1923 for carrying out the provisions of this Act.  Minus funds set for the commission’s administrative expenses, the funds were to be apportioned to the States on the basis one one-third based on total area, one-third on population, and one-third on mileage of rural delivery and star routes in each State compared with the national total.  The Federal share of eligible project costs was no more than 50 percent, with the State providing the balance.  However, the States had to provide the match; they could not pass the Federal apportionment on to counties or other political subdivisions as many had under the 1916 Act.  This distinction meant the Federal-State matching funds would be used on main market highways, with the funds that counties had been using to help with the State match freed for use on county roads.  For States with large amounts of Federal public land (over 5 percent of total area of land in the State), the Federal share of project costs would be 50 percent “plus a percentage of such total estimated cost equal to one-half of the percent which the area of the unappropriated public lands in such State bears to the total area of such State.”

In States where the constitution prohibited the use of State funds for internal improvements, its Federal funds would be withheld.  Each such State would have 2 years to pass the constitutional amendments or alterations “necessary to the enjoyment of the sum so withdrawn.”  When the necessary changes “have been approved and ratified by the State, the Secretary of the Treasury . . . shall immediately make available to such State, for the purpose set forth in this Act, the sum withdrawn as hereinbefore provided.”

The bill reflected President Harding’s views on maintenance.  It provided that, “no project shall be approved by the commission in any State until the State has made adequate provision for the maintenance of all highways selected by the commission in that State.”  If a State, upon notice of a maintenance deficiency, does not place the road in “proper condition of maintenance” within 100 days of the notice, the commission would make the repairs and charge the State by reductions in its apportionment of Federal-aid funds. 

The National Forest roads program under the 1916 Act would continue, with the commission handling the work in the forests under the Agriculture Department’s jurisdiction, as well as similar work in cooperation with the Department of the Interior within Indian reservations.

Because Senator Townsend had President Harding’s message in hand while drafting the bill, S. 1355 was considered an Administration measure.

In an interview with American Motorist, Senator Townsend said, “Concentration of Federal aid money upon the most important State roads which have an interstate character is the next logical step in cooperation with the several States in highways improvement.”  He was certain that Congress would consider President Harding’s view that “the Federal agency of administration should be elevated to the importance and vested with authority comparable to the work before it.”  Senator Townsend said, “This is a proposition which is certain to meet with general approval from those who have truly at heart consistent good roads progress.”

He also discussed the proposed commission:

Highways now concern five branches of our Government, and there should be a distinct authority which can deal with all departments and possess an independence of procedure. No longer can this work be accomplished effectively through the bureau of a single department.  Transportation is the life of the nation, and travelable highways facilitate the daily activities of millions of American families.  [“$200,000,000 for Roads,” The New York Times, May 1, 1921, page 19; “New Townsend Bill Contains President’s Views on Roads,” Motor Age, May 5, 1921, page 223; Eldridge, M.O., “Townsend Measure Designed to Meet Needs of the Day,” American Motorist, June 1921, page 22]

The New York Times, on its Automobile page, also examined the situation in June.  Its article began:

Motorists in the United States who have given even a moderate study to the good roads needs of our country are looking to Washington this month to see if any broad-minded policy will be adopted for the development of our national highways.  The question being asked by many motorists who have given time to the study of road problems is whether the legislators who have had before them for several Congressional sessions important matters regarding the national road policy, will make a definite decision.  If anything more were needed as a spur to constructive action in highway management and development, that was given by President Harding in his clear statement to Congress on the necessity of proper authority and supervisions.

After quoting President Harding, the article discussed Senator Townsend’s 1921 bill:

The essential difference between this bill and those previously introduced by Senator Townsend, lies in the fact that the Federal appropriations are expended through the State Highway Departments on the system laid out by the Federal Highway Commission, rather than being expended directly by the Federal Commission on rights of way belonging to the Federal Government.  The appropriation made in the pending bill is much less than suggested in previous measures, this being possible because of the fact that the States must participate, in most instances, to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost, in the construction of the interstate system, whereas in the previous measures the Federal Government paid 100 per cent of the cost of both construction and maintenance.

Roy Chapin told the Times that no single issue before Congress had greater potential affecting people profoundly than this bill:

In the light of our past experience, we have come to a realization that we can no longer treat this question as a bureaucratic detail.  The condition of our highways affects agriculture, commerce, our military and postal needs, the whole economic and sociological fabric of the nation.  The problem is too intricate for any one man.  Inter-relationships as broad even as those of the railway cannot be left solely to the States.  Continuity of policy, direct responsibility, a control which, while it takes into account the needs of the State, never forgets the greater need of the nation, must be had or waste is inevitable.

In the days to come an awakened public will make available vast sums for highway construction, maintenance, transportation.  Unless those sums are administered with clear vision, a reaction is inevitable.  Clearly this is a public trust of first magnitude, which should be met now by legislation such as the President has called for.  [“National Motor Roads – Look for Definite Decision by Congress on Government Policy this Month,” The New York Times, June 19, 1921, page 80]

Transcontinental Travel in Mid-1921

In May 1921, the head of AAA’s Touring Bureau, A. G. Seiler, urged motorists to consider crossing the continent by motor:

Planning a transcontinental automobile tour, such as will afford the maximum amount of comfortable travel, it is necessary to consider carefully many factors which have to do with general road conditions, and thus, in some measure, provide for uninterrupted travel.

Before starting on an extended journey, it is well to decide first the exact time of the year in which the trip is to be made and then outline a course through the latitude which, according to climatic conditions, will offer most agreeable travel.

It is reasonable to assume that a course through the southern States might well be followed from October 1 to May 1, after which period snows in the mountains further north, followed by spring thaws, make it impossible to drive through the mountain passes and over sections of dirt and sand that are always affected by such extreme conditions.

After May 1 and until the 15th of June, when the hot summer temperature makes extreme southerly travel disagreeable, it is advisable to direct one’s trip through the more central latitude, preferable over such routes as Pike’s Peak, the National Old Trails Road, Lincoln and Roosevelt highways, or a combination of parts of these routes which pass through Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City and other important cities.

All of the routes offered trips on side roads.  “Regardless of the fact that some of the trails present difficulties in unseasonable weather, the majority of automobilists seldom hesitate in planning their circuitous tours to include every State and well-known resort to assure themselves of one grand, delightful outing.”  [Seiler, A. G., “Motoring Across the Continent,” American Motorist, May 1921, page 32]

The Automobile Club of Southern California announced that it was embarking on “the greatest road-mapping undertaken ever assumed by any motoring organization.”  The 5-month trip would cover 25,000 miles through the United States and Canada.  “It will be an international road marking trip, the first of its kind ever undertaken by any automobile club in the world.”  The tour would avoid one route:

The National Old Trails route has already been charted, sign-posted and mapped by the club, so it will not be necessary to repeat inspection here.  [“Greatest Road Charting Tour in History Is Undertaken by Automobile Club’s Busy Crew,” Touring Topics, June 1921, pages 24, 31]

The Battle Continues in Congress

By mid-1921, Congress had several road bills to consider.  They reflected the wide range of views on national roads versus Federal-aid, but as reflected in Senator Townsend’s new bill, a middle view between the extremes seemed to be gaining strength.

Several factors were at play.  Chief MacDonald had stabilized the Federal-aid highway program and established positive relations among State highway officials and other good roads interests.  Further, many of the problems that had hindered the Federal-aid highway program had been resolved.  The war had reduced personnel, construction workers, supplies, and railroad shipments of road building material.  An extra layer of Washington bureaucracy and, therefore, uncertainty, had been added to Federal-aid project development during the war.  Following the armistice, these problems gradually were resolved amidst post-war economic disruption.

Moreover, as reflected in Director Logan Page’s defensive 1-year summary of activities since enactment of the 1916 Act, cited earlier, BPR and the States had not had time before the war to identify, and correct, problems the 1916 Act had unintentionally created for the program.  Testifying in May 1921 before Chairman Townsend’s Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, Chief MacDonald explained some of the problems:

The year 1916-17, that followed the enactment of the first Federal-aid law, was largely taken up in preliminaries, such as the passage of necessary laws by the several States, etc. Immediately thereafter we were in the war and highways were, as you recall, placed on the list of luxuries or nonessentials.  With the close of the war, when we expected to go forward with a large program, we found ourselves limited by lack of labor, high prices of labor and material, and inadequate rail transportation.  Last year we were tremendously handicapped by lack of transportation and by priority orders issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . .

There are two congressional acts which provided Federal aid for roads, the act of 1916 and the act of 1919.  I shall not burden the committee with a statement of the provisions of these acts except to say that in the Federal act of 1916 there was a provision which limited the expenditure of funds to the improvement of post roads.  That provision was given a legal interpretation which made cooperation with the States difficult, and there was considerable hesitancy, or, at least, there was slow progress in getting under way projects which the States particularly needed first of all.

He explained that long-distance roads, many of which paralleled a railroad, often could not meet the post road requirement:

No doubt you know that the routes as they [the post roads] are laid out dodge sections of highway so that you might have a mile of post road following a general line of highway then there is left out 2 or 3 miles, and finally it comes back and follows the road for another mile.  The result is a zigzag system and, needless to say, we could not build highways that way.  I believe that as the highways are improved the postal routes will be rearranged to follow the improved roads.

He described several new principles based on experience:

First, the necessity for classification of roads into systems of equal or like importance.
Second, that State funds be provided for construction.
Third, that State funds be provided for maintenance.

Those, in my judgment, are the outstanding principles that have been shown by the experience of the past to be desirable in future Federal aid legislation . . . .

In 1916 there were only 17 States that had highway departments within the meaning of the Federal aid road act, which required all States to have a State highway department to function with the Federal department, so that the remainder of the United States were required to pass new legislation, which they did.

In 1916 there were only nine States which had State funds for highway construction.  In 1921 there are 28 States which have State funds for highway construction.  The remainder of the States, the 20 of them, either meet Federal aid with county funds or with county and State funds combined.

I have not included in that list of 28 States the States which meet the Federal funds partially through county and partially through State funds, of which there are about 10.  Wisconsin, for instance, has a State fund, but requires the counties to put up one-third of the cost, so that the State bears one-third, the Federal Government bears one-third, and the counties bear one-third.  The States of Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota have only a very small amount of State funds that go into the construction.  They act more as the agents of the counties.  Idaho is in much the same position.  There are 10 States in which no State funds are used.

Practically all of the other States put in more or less State funds.  But we may say that there are 20 States, approximately, that depend to a greater or less extent upon the counties and districts to meet Federal funds, and 28 States which are not dependent in that way, although some of them may use some county funds.

We have no authority to deal either with a county or with a road district.  We deal directly with the State highway department and do not question the source of the State funds, but do require a certificate always showing that the funds are available for any project that is approved.  And if the State department is securing the funds to meet the Federal apportionment through the counties or districts, we require legal evidence that the county or district funds are available to meet their obligations to the State.

The 1919 legislation had addressed some of the problems, such as the zigzag pattern resulting from the original definition of post roads:

I wish to bring out again that all Federal projects are confined in each State to a system of roads which has been established by State and county.  These road systems may have been established by the State department or by the legislature of the State.  Each project which is submitted by the State must lie on the program map which has been submitted.

BPR was working with the States “to bring the systems of adjoining States into correlation, and for that purpose have, in cooperation with the Geological Survey, been preparing a system of State maps for all of the States on the same scale so that we can correlate these roads at the border lines of the States.  [Interstate Highway System, Hearings Before the Committee on Post Office and Post Roads, United States Senate, Sixty-Seventh Congress, First Session, Part 2, pages 262-273.  Quoted material rearranged for presentation here.]

Professor Seely summed up the impact that MacDonald had on the debate in and out of Congress.  MacDonald had established communications with those in favor of a commission and national roads, including Chapin.  He had refreshed relations with AASHO, including establishment of a Federal-Aid Advisory Committee of State highway officials:

Opening such avenues of communication not only kept the fight over the shape of federal involvement in highways from degenerating into name-calling, but also increased the entire road-building community’s respect for MacDonald.  By establishing cordial relations with such leading opposition figures as Chapin, MacDonald was demonstrating the cooperative style of leadership that had convinced state highway departments to change their position and support the federal-aid system.  MacDonald also seemed to be saying that he was not concerned with politics and that he was a technical expert concerned only with building better roads.  He would and could work with anyone sharing this general goal.  By early 1921, this attitude had made MacDonald, along with the BPR, the clearly recognized leader of the road-building community.  He had largely eliminated the red tape and other delays in the existing system and had worked to resolve the problems underlying the construction delays of 1919 and 1920.  Moreover, he was constantly consulted by Congress, another sign of the BPR’s return to a position of respect.

After this point, the battle between supporters of a national highway commission and advocates of federal aid was largely anticlimactic.  [Seely, pages 60-61]

Even so, Congress was not able to complete legislation by July 1, the start of a new fiscal year.  As a result, new funding was not authorized.

Several bills were under consideration.  Senator Townsend’s bill, with its appropriation of $100 million a year for 2 years, was one alternative.  Senator Lawrence C. Phipps of Colorado introduced a bill in May providing for an increased Federal share in the public lands States.  The bill also contained a provision extending the time in which existing appropriations could be used in road construction – to prevent funds from lapsing at the start of the next fiscal year on July 1, 2021.  It quickly passed the Senate, and was sent to the House, where the Committee on Roads struck out everything but the enacting clause and substituted a bill known as the Dowell bill, after Representative Cassius C. Dowell of Iowa.  The bill was essentially the bill drafted by the executive committee of AASHO.  [“Current Highway Legislation – VI,” Good Roads, May 4, 1921, page 239]

Representative Robsion introduced the combined Dowell-Phipps bill.  A contemporary account in American Motorist explained the bill’s provisions:

That State funds shall be used in the construction and maintenance of interstate or intercounty roads selected by the State highway departments, subject to the approval, modification, or revision of the Secretary of Agriculture; That the funds be maintained by the States with State money under Federal inspection and supervision;
That all Federal aid be confined to 7 per cent of the highways in each State, preference being given to an interstate system comprising not over 3/7 of the 7 per cent;
That the Federal Government pay 50 per cent of the cost of projects except in public-land States, where it may pay a greater percentage;
That the administration of the act remain with the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Agriculture.

The Dowell bill carries no appropriation.  There are doubtless many members of Congress who voted for it who would not have done so had it carried an appropriation.  Other members voted for it because they had gone on record as being favorable to good roads appropriations by Congress and the Dowell bill was to them the only thing in sight.

Thus the Dowell bill amends the present law and ostensibly provides for many of the needed changes embraced in the Townsend bill.  By one provision or another, however, these needed changes are rendered inoperative for periods of from four to five years . . . . A careful analysis of the Dowell bill indicates that it is defective in many particulars.  Its mediocrity is doubtless due to the fact that so little consideration was given to it by the House of Representatives and its Committee on Roads.  [Eldridge, M. O., “Federal Highways Legislation Now Needed – Which Kind?” American Motorist, August 1921, pages 21-22, 44]

The House passed the bill in June after a 40-minute debate that Engineering News-Record summarized.  The debate revealed that the principles behind the Dowell bill, including the maintenance provision, had “overwhelming majority” support.  Representative Robsion suggested that Senator Townsend’s plan called for “just a few interstate roads” to be laid out by a Federal Highway Commission.  In Representative Robsion’s view, the commission would disregard the State systems already laid out.  “To cut down this system and destroy it after we have spent five years and millions of dollars in building it up would be next to a crime.”

Chairman Dunn of the Committee on Roads was the biggest obstacle to the Dowell bill in the House.  He said, “This is not a proper time to pass this bill.  I have been against it from the start.  I never thought the existing law was a square deal.  The Middle states and the Eastern states pay from two to four times as much as do other states . . . .  It seems singular to me that this bill should be taken up at this extra session, when we should be so busy with other matters.”  Given the amount of funds still available from previous bills, “the states have about as much as they can do to maintain the roads they already have built.”   

Representative Sam Rayburn of Texas was another critic.  “I am getting sick and tired of the federal government’s everlastingly sticking its hands into the affairs of my state.  I am against building up of more bureaus in Washington to reach out into the states and tell the people what they shall and what they shall not do.”

The House sent the amended Phipps bill back to the Senate for consideration.  The initial question was whether to refer the bill to committee, consider it on the House floor, or call for a conference committee to resolve differences between the Senate and House versions of the Phipps bill.  During debate, many Senators took the opportunity to comment on the contending
bills rather the resolutions at issue:

When the bill was presented to Senate [on] June 30, Senator Townsend, chairman of the committee on post-offices and post roads, immediately moved that the bill and the amendment made by the House be referred to his committee.  Senator [Kenneth D.] McKellar, of Tennessee, a member of the committee who is in favor of the House bill, moved that the Senate concur in the House amendment.  The House had attached its bill – the Dowell measure – to the Phipps bill which already had passed the Senate.

The discussion following the motions of Senator Townsend and of Senator McKellar went beyond the motions to the underlying bills.  Clearly, the Senate would not allow this legislation to go on the statute books without having had an opportunity to discuss and amend it.  In fact, a filibuster was openly threatened.  There was every evidence that the great majority of senators were anxious to consider both the Dowell and the Townsend measures.  In view of this sentiment, Senator McKellar withdrew his motion and the Senate, without a roll call, sent the House bill to the Senate committee.  Senator Townsend made it clear that there would be no effort to pigeonhole the House bill in his committee.

Many Senators favored the current program as modified in 1919:

It is evident that the Senate will insist upon material changes in each of the bills.  Strong objection was voiced to any proposition which requires a state to modify its constitution and its laws so as to participate in the benefits of a federal appropriation.  It was said that the constitutions of 17 states contain a provision which forbids the issuing of interest-bearing evidences of indebtedness for the purpose of making internal improvements.  It was pointed out, however, that this condition would merely prohibit the states from raising the money by bond issues but would in no way preclude the securing of the fund by taxation, which would require no change in the constitutions of those states.  It was argued, nevertheless, that the latter plan would not be practicable, since to raise the necessary amount by taxation would call for such a large levy that the people would not vote the tax.

It was declared that the existing law had worked out fairly well and that it would be better to let well enough alone than to embark upon a revolutionary system.  The question also was raised as to whether it would be constitutional for the federal government to lay out a post road and then order the state to maintain it.  The federal government, it was pointed out, does not build post-offices and then attempt to order the states to keep them in repair.  [“Phipps Highway Bill Goes to Senate Committee,” Engineering News-Record, July 7, 1921, pages 35, 38; “Construction of the term ‘Rural Post Roads,’” Congressional Record – Senate, pages 3229-3237, June 30, 1921]

ENR Sees the Faultline

With the Dowell and Townsend bills in hand, Engineering News-Record was able to compare the two options.

The Dowell Bill, which had been drafted by AASHO and reviewed by the President and the Secretary, "has been referred to as a golden mean between inadvisable extremes."  The bill addressed many of the problems that had been cited in criticisms of the Federal-aid highway program and placed “the future program upon a sounder basis”:

The bill deserves unqualified support.  It represents the best thought of an organization which recognizes that the great roadbuilding program of the future must be carried out on a sound economic basis . . . .  The new bill, giving increased control to the federal authorities, puts teeth in the original act and will insure the selection and construction and later the adequate maintenance of a system defensible upon economic lines.

The editorial added, "we do not wish to belittle the efforts of those who" sponsored the 1916 Act. "Imperfections were to be expected.  There has been written into the new bill the lessons of experience."  [“The New Federal-Aid Bill,” Engineering News-Record, May 5, 1921, pages 748-749]

After Senator Townsend released the new version of his bill in late April, the magazine called it a "very material step forward in composing the differences which exist regarding a proper federal highway policy."  The first important change was that, “It accepts the federal-aid principle, in lieu of the policy the Senator has previously fathered of the construction of a national highway system at the exclusive cost of the federal government.”

When a Federal Highway Commission had been proposed 3 years earlier "there was widespread dissatisfaction" with the existing program:

In the last two years, however, there has been a material change for the better, and highway officials throughout the country are thoroughly satisfied with the way the government highway activities have been administered.

As a result, the main reason the commission had been proposed "is now removed."

Another factor affected the magazine's assessment:

Moreover, there is growing up today in governmental circles a strong opposition to all of the "independent establishments," except those having judicial functions.  In many quarters in Washington there is strong conviction that all of these independent establishments should be thrown into appropriate departments wherever administrative functions are involved.

Advocacy of the formation of a Federal Highway Commission at the present time, therefore, not only lacks the backing which circumstances gave to the proposal originally, but must meet with the strongly developed opposition to commissions and other establishments outside of the departments and reporting directly to the President.

Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the Government, would soon hold hearings on reorganization of the government:

It will then become plain, we believe, that it is hopeless now to expect Congress to authorize any new independent establishments, such as the Federal Highway Commission would be.

Although the editor of the magazine had previously supported the commission, the editorial on Senator Townsend’s new bill concluded:

With the situation as it is, we have high hopes that Senator Townsend will abandon this feature of his proposed law.  Should he do that there will then be entire agreement between the former opposing federal-aid and national-highway camps, and that in turn would assure an uninterrupted continuance of liberal federal support for highway development.  ["Getting Together on Federal Highway Policy," Engineering News-Record, May 12, 1921, page 797]