Chapter X: Financing Highways and Highway Transportation Lines (2)

It was not the intention to take away from the states any right which they might enjoy for the construction work was to be done in accordance with the laws of the state within which a project lay but subject to the inspection of the Secretary of Agriculture. He also has power to pay to the states the amount of money set aside when a project has been satisfactorily completed and also to make payments on the same during the process of construction not to exceed the United States’ pro rata part of the value of the work done, and not to exceed $10,000 per mile of road exclusive of bridges more than 20 feet clear span.

The states snapped up this money greedily and the demand for more money became so great that in 1919 Congress appropriated $200,000,000 more, and still later, 1921, appropriated $75,000,000, and $15,000,000 for national forest roads. And still later, June 18, 1922, there was authorized an appropriation of $65,000,000 to be expended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923, and $75,000,000 for the succeeding fiscal year. At the end of five years after the passage of the Federal Aid road act, there had been completed under its terms 7469 miles of road and 17,977 miles additional were under construction. Texas ranked first in the number of miles completed, with 682; and Illinois had received the greatest amount of federal aid on projects completed and under construction, with $11,807,906; while Texas was a close second with $11,393,485.

While the mileage built by Federal and state aid is less in the more compact densely populated Eastern states, the cost per mile is much more as much more expensive types of roads are being built. In the West and South earth roads largely make up the mileage. It has been objected that these do not properly come under the wish of Congress when it provided that the fund should be used only in the construction of “substantial” roads. Earth road advocates argue that such features as grading, draining and straightening roads may be considered permanent, in so far as the road is ready for any type of surfacing that may be desired to be laid at a later date. Recognizing the merits of both contentions The Bureau of Public Roads issued, in 1922, a decision practically as follows:

The question of a more definite policy to be followed in connection
with the approval of earth road Federal Aid projects which
involve grading and drainage only, has for some time been under
consideration, and it has been decided that hereafter such projects
will only be approved on condition that The (State) Highway
Department agree, in so far as it may legally do so, that within a
reasonable time after completion of the improvement of the project
as an earth road, it will place or cause to be placed thereon, an
adequate and substantial type of surfacing.

By adequate and substantial type of surfacing is meant such type as
will carry the prospective traffic with such maintenance expenses
that the total annual charges will represent a reasonable expenditure
for the public service rendered by the highway.

It seems, therefore, that the Government expects to assist in the financing of roads that appear adequate for the purposes intended.

=State Aid.=--The machinery of paying state money to finance local roads throughout the counties varies greatly with the different states. For example half may come from Federal Aid, half the remainder from State Aid, and half the remainder from County Aid, leaving only a very small amount for the local abutting property. In other states a large part falls on the abutting property. It would seem as though through main traveled roads should be largely financed by nation and state while local marketing roads which will not require such expensive surfacing should be largely locally financed.

=Present State of Federal Aid.=--The Bureau of Public Roads gives out the information that 11,930 miles of road have been constructed during the year 1921 by the States in conjunction with Federal Aid, at a total cost of $231,963,682, toward which the government allotted $94,057,089. There were under way during the year 31,228 miles, which was about one-half the road work carried on in the United States during the year. It is safe to assume, then, that through the stimulus of Government Aid, direct and indirect, more than 20,000 miles were built during 1921, and that more than 40,000 more miles are under way.

The effects of Federal Aid is just now beginning to be felt; a few years more will see the United States so well supplied with good roads that the national appropriations for Federal Aid may be reduced materially.

It is estimated that the $190,000,000 available for allotment, $65,000,000 for the year ending 1923, $75,000,000 for the year 1924, and $50,000,000 remaining from previous appropriations, will result in the construction of more than 25,000 miles of road, which added to the 46,000 miles that are expected to result from previous federal appropriations, makes a total of 71,000 miles, or nearly 40 per cent of the estimated 180,000 miles of good roads in the System of Federal Aid roads now being outlined.

The U. S. Bureau of Public Roads gives out the figures up to December 31, 1921, as follows:

Federal Aid Apportioned, 1917 to 1922 inc., $339,875,000
Projects under Construction:
Total Estimated Cost 275,652,104
Federal Aid 117,049,690
Miles 15,834
Projects on which Construction is Completed:
Total Estimated Cost 221,739,710
Federal Aid 95,054,184
Miles 12,907

=Matching Federal Aid Dollars.=--The main argument that brought the Federal Aid law into being was the need of farm to market roads and the fact that in the past the expense for building and maintaining roads fell most heavily upon the farmer. In an excellent report made by Senator Bankhead (Senate Report 250, 64th Congress, 1st Session) for the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, the statement is made that “it is probably conservative to say that at least 75 per cent of the money raised for road purposes” at that time, 1916, “is paid by the owners of country property.” He gives statistics to show that the owners of less than one-third of the real property of the United States were paying more than three-fourths of the cost of the public roads. This did not seem to be equitable, since the country people did not have a monopoly on their use. The burden of building and caring for the roads should be distributed among all who were benefited by them. There is no very adequate method of doing this, but inasmuch as all citizens, both city and country, share in the raising of national revenues, the result of federal appropriations would be to tend in some measure to equalize the cost of roads as between city and country.

It was not thought wise to make a direct gift of money from the federal treasury, as that would favor too much of paternalism, would result in “pork barrel” scandals, and would stifle local initiative, energy, and self-help. If the federal government were to enter upon the building outright of a system of roads, there would be a temptation for the states and counties to cease building in the hope the government would eventually get around to them. Likewise the demand for “pork” would be enormous. The plan was therefore devised of requiring the state to pay half the expenses of road building, that is, of matching dollars, fifty-fifty, with the federal treasury. It was further decided that federal money should go into road extensions, leaving repairs and renewals to the states. If states refuse to perform the necessary maintenance the only recourse the government has is to withdraw future Federal aid. The object of the government was to add to the stock of good roads, and eventually secure the necessary 20 per cent upon which engineers state, 80 to 90 per cent of the entire traffic can be adequately accommodated.

Many of the states were devoid of the necessary machinery to take care of this money and expend it efficiently in the construction of roads or to maintain them in good condition afterward; so the Government asked that highway departments be created, if they did not already exist, in order that there might be skilled supervision and efficient organization on the parts of the states as that was the best insurance that these duties would be thoroughly performed. Furthermore there would be some centralized authority at Washington and some at each state capital; the initiative and the choice of location, types, and materials for road building would not be left wholly to local administrations which were more likely to be swerved to meet the selfish interests of prominent local personages than is possible in larger political units. The judgment of Congress is less likely to be biased by local conditions or by selfish individuals than would that of a township or county board, or even the State Legislature. On the other hand from the very beginning of the national federation states have jealously guarded their rights, giving up very reluctantly to the Federal Government in any attempts toward centralization. So “no policy,” states the committee report, “should be adopted which does not permit the retention by the States of the fullest measure of control consistent with the necessary inspection and safeguarding which is customary with all federal appropriations.” Hence the states were left the power or not as they saw fit of availing themselves of the Government Aid money. Nearly if not all the states in the Union have availed themselves of Federal Aid. It is claimed by opponents of the system that this is because if a state does not take its quota the money will be appropriated to other states while this state will still have to pay its proportional part to the fund from which the money comes. This they claim is pernicious and has caused states to ask aid when voting the taxes to match the same was extremely burdensome to the people. In other words the people “are forced into a position where their only justification is a presumption that they are grabbing while the grabbing is good.”[199]

It was the intention of the framers of the law that the contribution from the government would be so substantial that results of magnitude might be accomplished and still at the same time not raise taxes higher than the people could stand. The plan adopted seemed just. First the road is primarily for the use of the people hence population should be a factor. A secondary consideration was to make accessible the best products of the farm and to develop the land which on account of its remoteness to markets and the conditions of the highways was not in the highest or best state of culture. Area then was a second factor. The third factor was the post roads--rural delivery and star routes. This last as has been pointed out in a previous chapter was possibly the peg upon which the garment could be hung in the closet of constitutionality. However, it was thought that “the interests of the East are protected by the factor of population, the interests of the West should receive consideration through including area as a factor of apportionment. Finally, the direct interest of the federal government,” according to the Committee, “as represented by the great mileage of rural delivery and star routes for the transportation of mail and parcel post should have some weight in the granting of federal funds.”

Federal Aid has now been in operation for five years. Most people think it has demonstrated its worth. But it must be remembered that five years is a short time for the stupendous task of transforming an almost impassable conglomeration of roads into a usable system of comfortable highways. The soldiers who went to France during the World War came back enthusiastic converts of good roads. Foreigners traveling in this country have frequently marveled at the paucity of good roads. The natives having grown up here knew no better. The Federal Aid experiment has been the means of bringing the people to a partial knowledge of the benefits of better highways. They will not be content to go backward. In the words of a committee report to the Legislature of the State of Nebraska[200]: “The (Federal Aid) System seems to be well grounded and is nourished and sustained by nation-wide organizations, that are banded together for the purpose of maintaining and extending the system, and inasmuch as they seem to be powerful enough to influence the maintenance of the system, it will no doubt be maintained until some organization equally influential makes of the matter an issue and overturns the system.” The Committee, while evidently prejudiced against matching dollars with the Federal Government, admitted the value to the state of the work done and that “there is no more important internal improvement in which the state can engage.”

Under a Federal highway act signed November 9, 1921, $75,000,000 becomes available by Federal Aid for road construction in the several states for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1922, and in addition $15,000,000 for roads in national forests. This new Federal Aid Act is very similar to the act of 1916. The method of allotment is as before; the ratio of allotment nearly the same, but a new feature is that the minimum allotment to any state shall not be less than one-half of 1 per cent of the total to all states, which in this case amounts to $365,000. This increases the apportionment to the four states of Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The new Act changes the manner in which a state may use its allotment. Each state must select a connected road system not exceeding 7 per cent of its road mileage for improvement with Federal Aid. This system will be divided into two classes, one to be known as “interstate highways” the other as “intercounty highways.” The interstate highways must not exceed three-sevenths of the system selected; on them not more than 60 per cent of the Federal Aid Allotment can be spent without the joint approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and the State Highway Department. The intercounty highways will receive the remainder of the allotment.

Some of the Western states where there are large areas of unappropriated public land due to the desert or mountainous nature of the country, found it to be impossible to continue the matching of Government funds. The new act provides that in states where the unappropriated public land amounts to more than 5 per cent of the area of the state, the 50 per cent allotment is increased by an amount equal to one-half the percentage of unappropriated public land in the state.

Before any funds can be paid to any state, the state must appropriate money under the direct control of the Highway Department to match the Federal apportionment or so much as it desires to avail itself of. Likewise it must provide suitable means for the maintenance of Federal Aid highways.

The allotment to each state of Federal Aid funds available June 30, 1922, under the act signed November 9, 1921, authorizing an appropriation of $75,000,000, follows:

----------------------------
State Allotment
----------------------------
Alabama $1,553,420
Arizona 1,053,281
Arkansas 1,264,142
California 2,462,098
Colorado 1,341,175
Connecticut 480,897
Delaware 365,625
Florida 886,825
Georgia 1,997,957
Idaho 938,536
Illinois 3,246,281
Indiana 1,958,855
Iowa 2,102,872
Kansas 2,102,281
Kentucky 1,417,178
Louisiana 996,989
Maine 695,160
Maryland 640,629
Massachusetts 1,096,176
Michigan 2,249,532
Minnesota 2,123,597
Mississippi 1,294,906
Missouri 2,448,128
Montana 1,546,885
Nebraska 1,581,189
Nevada 953,436
New Hampshire 365,625
New Jersey 942,870
New Mexico 1,189,823
New York 3,696,447
North Carolina 1,709,333
North Dakota 1,164,714
Ohio 2,823,004
Oklahoma 1,752,339
Oregon 1,182,663
Pennsylvania 3,398,925
Rhode Island 365,625
South Carolina 1,061,237
South Dakota 1,204,060
Tennessee 1,647,692
Texas 4,425,172
Utah 849,417
Vermont 365,625
Virginia 1,456,828
Washington 1,103,709
West Virginia 802,359
Wisconsin 1,894,815
Wyoming 934,617
----------------------------

The question of whether or not it is wise for a state to match the Federal Aid appropriation for the purpose of building roads is a debatable one. When people see the amount of their taxes going up by leaps and bounds they naturally look for some place for retrenchment. The road tax being, now, one of the largest in the state is naturally subject to attack.

In the consideration of the problem two questions stand out prominently: Do the results so far obtained justify the expenditure? and can the United States and the States afford to continue the expenditures?

Reports from the Bureau of Public Highways indicate that with the aid of the $350,000,000 previously appropriated by the Government, 17,000 miles of road had been completed up to May 31, 1922, and in addition nearly 14,500 miles were under construction involving more than $287,500,000 of Federal Aid. To match this fund the states have appropriated approximately $380,000,000, making a total of $667,500,000. The Bureau states the average cost of roads per mile of all types of construction with Federal Aid has been $17,120, of which 43 per cent has been the cost to the government. About one-fifth of the Federal system, that it is thought will be sufficient to accommodate 80 per cent of the traffic, has been completed. This seems to be reasonable progress considering the stupendousness of the task.

The expenses so far are a little more than $6 per person in six years or approximately $1 per person per year, counting the population of the United States as 110,000,000. If any one is anxious to save this expense it can easily be done by a little economy. Refraining from smoking one cigar a month, from drinking one ice-cream soda a month, from going to three picture shows in a year, or by allowing the automobile to stand in the garage one or two Sundays per year.

Practically each state in the Union could easily collect its share of the match money by a one-cent tax per gallon on gasoline. A score of states have adopted this method and more will, as by this means the land which is highly burdened with general and school taxes will be considerably relieved, and the road tax shifted to the road users. The man who owns an automobile will not thus have the ultimate amount which he pays for roads decreased, but the man who does not own an automobile will be relieved in so far as the gasoline tax is not passed on in the way of increased charges. But the gasoline tax will not appear on the annual tax receipts and therefore is less noticeable.

The answer to the question, “should the states continue to match the Federal Aid dollar?” in the opinion of the writer is, “yes, until the Federal system of 180,000 miles of road is completed.” This ought to be accomplished in about ten years.

Most of the Mid-west and Western states pay into the national Federal Aid fund, as duties, revenue taxes, etc., less than they receive in the way of Federal Aid. These states, therefore, are the gainers in the matching process. Even where there is no financial advantage as in some of the more populous states, there is a psychological advantage in the stimulus which this money gives toward the building of good roads. Good, dependable, 365-days-a-year roads must come. They are demanded by the 10,000,000 pleasure automobile owners and their 30,000,000 additional passengers; they are demanded by the more than 2,000,000 commercial vehicle owners and their 50,000,000 patrons; they are demanded by the man who lounges along in a smooth-riding silent $10,000 car; and they are demanded by the driver of the sputtering, rough-riding, ear-splitting $400 car. Yes, good roads must come, and the Federal Aid movement begun at the behest and in behalf of the farm element will continue even if the burdens of building and maintenance be shifted through the gasoline tax and the automobile license, from the farm and city real estate to the owners and users of motor-driven vehicles. With all these influences working it is not likely legislatures will refuse to match dollars with the Government.

=Financing Highway Transportation.=--There are at least three methods of financing highway transportation: (1) Individual; (2) Partnership; and (3) Corporation.

_Individual._--The individual method may be divided into two classes: (1) Those that are a part of auxiliary to or accessory to other business, and (2) those that make up or compose the business itself.

The highway transport lines that are auxiliary to other business may be illustrated by the delivery truck of the grocer, the trucks for hauling to and from the depots of large department stores, or better the trucks owned by creameries which perform a sort of express service for the producers of milk and cream. The Fairmont Creameries, with headquarters at Omaha, operate more than 140 trucks, many of which make regular trips over established routes, picking up at the farmer’s gate full cans of cream and milk and leaving empty ones. The cost of these services, while ostensibly borne by the creamery, must of necessity be accounted for and charged to the expense of doing business or to the individual sellers of cream. The business is not run as a trucking or transportation business, but as a creamery, a department store, or a grocery, and is reckoned in as part of the annual expense or overhead charges. The motor to the truck gardener is of as much importance as any other part of his business. In fact his plant would be as handicapped without it as would a clock without its hour hand. The same may be said of practically all enterprises which depend on transportation upon the highways as a function of their business.

All such transportation, therefore, is financed in exactly the same manner as the business itself, in fact it is a part of it.

In the other class of individual ownership the business is usually so small that one person, the owner, can look after the whole of it. He may or may not have any assistants. However, he finances it as an individual. He either has the money at the beginning or is able to borrow it. If he borrows it he gives his note acknowledging the debt and stating the time or times for payment, rate of interest and any other stipulations that might have been entered into at the time of securing the loan. He will probably give a mortgage on his property, that is a writ showing the debt to be a lien on the property under which the loaner of the money may, if it is not paid as stipulated, foreclose and sell the property for the settlement of the debt. It becomes null when the note on which it is based has been paid. If, however, it has been “recorded” in the office of the Register of Deeds or other place set aside for that purpose, it will have to be “released” and the release recorded in order to clear the title to the property.

_Partnership._--An agreement of two or more persons to combine their property, labor, or skill for the purpose of transacting any particular business for their joint profit is called a partnership. The agreement may be oral or written. The partnership is just as extensive as the business it is proposed to do, but no more so. Each partner is entitled to his share of the profits as arranged for in the agreement but in the absence of any stipulation the law will presume equal shares. The partners may agree on a way of dividing the losses, but such agreement will only hold as against those to whom it is made known and credit has been given accordingly. The laws usually provide that articles of partnership may be made known generally to the public by proper publication and recording in a place designated for that purpose. Although long neglect of any articles of agreement will act as a waiver against an innocent creditor.

In a partnership the action of one partner with some exceptions, binds the whole partnership, so that rather than have several members to a partnership it is better to form a corporation. A partnership may borrow money and mortgage its property just the same as an individual.

A transport line then could be financed by each partner putting in a definite proportion of the capital. Two men might enter into a partnership and one man furnish all the capital, the other the skill and experience necessary to operate the business, the profits and losses to be shared in a manner agreed upon. However, without notice to a creditor at the time the debt was entered into each partner could be held for the entire debt if partnership property would not take care of it.

The advantages to be derived from a partnership are that larger capital may be obtained and more business done, the benefit of business skill and experience may be procured, and the work of management may be sub-divided among the several partners so that each may become more proficient, or more efficiently administer his own department.

There will be no particular difference between the financing of the partnership and the individual ownership, except perhaps more capital will come in with more partners. The partnership agreement should, to prevent misunderstanding, be carefully drawn up in writing and signed by each partner. It should state the amount and kind of capital each partner puts into the business, the relations and duties of the partners, and the manner in which profits and losses are to be shared.

_Corporation._--A corporation is a legal combination of two or more persons into an artificial personage for the purpose of carrying on some lawful business under such grants as secure to it a legal existence and power to act even though the individual memberships change.

In this type of proprietorship the individual owners called stockholders are liable for the debts of the business only to the extent of their stockholding, in some states to double the par value of their stock. The stockholders have a voice in the affairs of the business only to the extent of their ownership of stock, such ownership being evidenced by certificates of stock issued in proportion to the number of shares of stock owned. State laws are voluminous and restrictions are numerous for the regulation of corporations. The organization must be made according to law and then incorporated. It must conduct its work according to definite requirements, file regular reports, pay special taxes, and so on. The business is conducted through a board of directors elected by the stockholders at regular intervals of time specified in the articles of incorporation. The board of directors usually elects its own officers and appoints a manager or managers for the business. The operation of the business is under the direction of a manager, who may as a rule appoint his assistants and employees, unless this latter be designated to under officers. The manager is under the supervision of the board of directors, and the directors hold their office at the hands of the stockholders. So that the real owners have only an indirect supervision over the affairs of the business. The corporation is given a name and seal and is empowered to act as an individual, may borrow money, own property, sue and be sued. Notwithstanding its somewhat cumbersome machinery the corporation is a favorite form of organization possibly because of its limited liability feature, its close centralized control even though the ownership be spread over large numbers, and the amount of money handled be great.

The large transportation companies, the railways, the steamship lines, electric street cars, canals, trolley lines, pipe lines, and so on, when held under private ownership, are all organized in this manner. There are many bus lines and many truck lines already incorporated, and with time the number will, no doubt, rapidly increase.

The shares of stock usually have a par value of $100. These are sold to investors to obtain the working capital. The amount of stock is limited by the articles of incorporation and must not exceed by the laws of most states an amount conducive to good business. The stock may be either common or preferred. Holders of preferred stock have some preferment such as drawing a definite fixed rate of interest while common stock receives no dividends until the interest on the preferred stock is paid.

Corporations may also raise money by selling bonds. These are certificates of indebtedness, bearing a fixed rate of interest, payable at definite fixed periods. Like other bonds they may be either sinking-fund, serial or annuity. Bonds differ from stocks in that their owners have no voice in the affairs of the corporation.

Money may also be borrowed on the notes of the corporation signed by its officers, when authorized by the board of directors.

Since the laws of the several states vary so widely and there are so many of them, it is impossible to give even a brief synopsis here. Should any highway transport company wish to incorporate it would be well to seek the advice of a lawyer and have him draw up the articles of incorporation and see that the laws of the state are fully complied with.

_Public Ownership._--It is not the intention here to go into a lengthy discussion of the merits and demerits of public ownership, but merely to mention this as a method of financing transportation lines.

On the continent of Europe public ownership of railways and canals has long been the practice. In England there is private ownership of railways, but the post office department operates the telegraph lines. In this country the Government has built and operates several ship canals, including the great Panama canal. The state of New York owns and operates the Erie Canal. During the War the operation of railways was taken under supervision by the Government, but this has now been turned back to the several lines. The public regulation, however, of railways is so strict, that they have so little initiative and freedom left, so little power to make rates, so little choice as how to deal with employees, that they might just as well be operated by the Government. Indeed, it is frequently stated that there is quite a large minority of the American citizenship that would like to see the Government take over all the railways and operate them as it does the Post Office at the mere cost of operation and maintenance.

On the other hand, a very large number of persons believe that the best governed nation is the one least governed and that the ordinary commercial and financial laws of supply and demand should regulate prices and that private capital should govern all industries.

There are places, however, where it seems to be the part of wisdom to establish public ownership. First, where the amount of money necessary to finance and operate the enterprise becomes a menace to the rest of the country, or where it is so large that it becomes a practical monopoly, then it would seem just for the Government to step in and, as in the case of the Standard Oil Company, force an unscrambling, or else take it over and run it as a public industry.

Second, where the work is so large that it is difficult to get private enterprise to take it over without grants of privileges that would be exorbitant and, perhaps, scandalous. The building of the Panama Canal proved too great a task for a French private company. This does not say that an American company could not have completed it, but to get money for a doubtful or uncertain proposition is not easy. The great Sault Ste. Marie locks under Government control are very satisfactory, probably more so than if they were operated by private capital for private profit.

Third, public ownership is advisable where private lines of transportation fail to accommodate the public. Numerous applications are being made nowadays by railroads for the privilege of discontinuing trains on branch lines. In some cases these have been allowed by railway commissions, in others refused. But if they are not paying, the public will not indefinitely force the railways to maintain them. Then it will be proper for the Government to take them over, finance and operate them, even at a loss if necessary, providing the same work can not be done by private highway transport lines.

Likewise, street-car lines are complaining bitterly at the inroads of the automobile upon their business. But street-car lines are necessary to the social and business functions of a city. It cannot very well get along without them. The streets are hardly wide enough to accommodate the passenger and commercial traffic as it is. With the street cars off that would be doubled with very much increased congestion and loss of time and a correspondingly greater number of accidents.

The street cars in every considerable municipality must be kept going. The Des Moines strike of 1921 proved that conclusively. It may be necessary for the city governments to take them over and pay any deficit from public taxation. But even that will be money well expended.

The same arguments apply to those lines of railroad whose traffic consists largely of short haul and comparatively small lots. If they cannot be made to pay it may be necessary for the public to take them over and keep them running on their longer hauls even at a loss in order to prevent the congestion that would ensue to the public roads should all the traffic be forced to the truck. Also, trucks and buses are not altogether dependable in spells of bad weather, and there may be other conditions that would make the steam train the better and more economical transportion agent, as it always is where large quantities are to be transported. It would be better to try to regulate all transport service that each might be made into a paying proposition. If it cannot be done by regulation the powerful long arm of government will have to take charge.

SELECTED REFERENCES

BLANCHARD, A. H., “Elements of Highway Engineering,” Chapter II, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

BLANCHARD, A. H. AND DROWNE, H. B., “Text-book on Highway
Engineering,” Chap. XXVII, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

BRADT, S. E., “Financing Permanent Roads,” Proceedings National
Conference on Concrete Road Building, 1914, p. 26, Chicago.

CHATBURN, G. R., “Highway Engineering,” pp. 335 et seq. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.

“Financing and Bonding Highway Work,” Proceedings Am. Soc. C. E.,
Vol. XLVIII, four articles by F. S. Green, pp. 511-512; H. S. Sisson,
pp. 513-515; E. C. Lunt, pp. 337-339; and J. N. Cole, 326-330.

HEWS, L. T. AND GLOVER, J. W., “Highway Bonds,” Bulletin 136, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.

LEWIS, NELSON P., “The Planning of the Modern City,” Chap. XIX;
“Financing of Highway Improvements,” American Highway Engineers’
Handbook, Section 28; John Wiley & Sons, New York.

NOLEN, JOHN, “City Planning,” Chap. XVI, D. Appleton & Co., New York.

ROBINSON, C. M., “City Planning,” Chap. XVII, G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
New York.

TILSON, G. W., “Street Pavements and Paving Materials,” Chap. VI,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.

VAN ORNUM, “Theory and Practice of Special Assessments,” Transactions
Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 336-422.

FOOTNOTES

[197] See Chatburn’s “Highway Engineering,” Wiley & Sons, New York,
p. 335 et seq.

[198] From Bulletin 136, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

[199] Newspaper article.

[200] Report of a Joint Committee appointed by the Governor and the
1921 Session of the Nebraska Legislature regarding the relative cost
of road construction by the state and by various counties.