Highway Commission Notes

Arizona Highway Commission Notes

October 16 and 17, 1933 The Arizona State Highway Commission met in regular session in their offices in the Highway Building, October 16, 1933, at 10:00 a. m. Those present were Vice-Chairman Vyne, Commissioners Addams, Barth and Mansfield, also, the Secretary and Attorney McDougall. Chairman Dowell and State Engineer O'Connell were absent. Deputy State Engineer Smyth acted in the absence of Mr. O'Connell. A delegation from Greenlee County, with Mr. T. E. Allyn, Secretary of the Greenlee County Development and Social Club acting as spokesman, requested the Highway Commission to construct a short link of proposed highway in Greenlee and Graham Counties, extending from the intersection of the State Line and State Road No. 78 of New Mexico, in the vicinity of Mule Creek, by way of Lime Stone Canyon, through Clifton and down the river to a point on Highway 180 just East of Solomonville, Arizona, and include this in the Federal Aid System. Many resolutions and petitions signed by business men and residents of Greenlee County urging the Highway Commission to give consideration to this request and relieve the unemployment situation in Greenlee County, were presented. Commissioner Addams stated that recently he had made a tour of the roads in Greenlee County and found that fifty per cent of the men employed on the highways under the jurisdiction of the Greenlee County Welfare association were aliens. He requested Greenlee County delegates to clear up this alien situation and advised that he objected strongly to these people being given employment when there were many American and Arizona citizens unemployed in that County. It was regularly moved by Commissioner Mansfield, seconded by Commissioner Barth, and unanimously carried, that in view of the fact there is nothing set up in our present budget to take care of this request, the petitions and communications be received and filed.

Awarding of the contract on the Benson-Vail Highway, N.R.H. 18-B and 18-C. The Secretary read a letter from Mr. C. V. Hallenbeck asking that he be permitted to withdraw his bids submitted October 10, 1933, on the Benson-Vail Highway, N.R.H. 18-B and 18-C, and on the Benson-Vail Highway, N.R.H. 18-G, inasmuch as his license as a contractor in the State of Arizona had not been issued, as he had anticipated it would be, on or before October 10, 1933. Attorney McDougall advised the Commission that the contractor is permitted to withdraw his bid and the Commission, under the laws of Arizona, is not entitled to recognize the bid of Mr. Hallenbeck on account of the fact that he is not a licensed contractor in Arizona. It was regularly moved by Commissioner Mansfield, seconded by Commissioner Addams, and unanimously carried, that on the advice of the Attorney General, the request of Mr. Hallenbeck to with draw his bids be granted and his bids not be recognized by the Commission. Deputy State Engineer Smyth recommended, subject to the approval of the Bureau of Public Roads, that the contract on the Benson-Vail Highway, N.R.H. 18-B and 18-C, be awarded to the low bidder, the Phoenix-Tempe Stone Company, in the amount of $102,-908.21. It was regularly moved by Commissioner Addams, seconded by Commissioner Mansfield, and unanimously carried, that the recommendation of the Deputy State Engineer be accepted.

Awarding of the contract on the Benson-Vail Highway, N.R.H. 18-G. Deputy State Engineer Smyth recommended, subject to the approval of the Bureau of Public Roads, that inasmuch as there is only a difference of $149 between Item 15, calling for Cable Road Guard, and Item 15-A, (Alternate) Calling for Steel Road Guard, that the contract on the Benson-Vail Highway, N.R.H. 18-G, be awarded to the low bidder, the Phoenix-Tempe Stone Company, on their bid using the alternate. It was regularly moved by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Addams, and unanimously carried, that the recommendation of the Deputy State Engineer be accepted.

The Secretary presented a letter requesting permission for Mr. R. E. Canion, who was present, to sue Mr. H. L. Royden in the name of the state, for labor, materials and supplies, furnished for use in the construction of the Flag staff-Williams Highway, F. A. 24-1st Reo., Unit A. It was regularly moved by Commissioner Addams, seconded by Commissioner Mansfield, and unanimously carried, that this matter be referred to the Attorney General for investigation and report at the next meeting of the Commission, and that Mr. H. C. Hatcher, Statistical Engineer, notify Mr. H. L. Royden this matter will be considered at the next meeting. Mr. G. R. Duncan, acting as spokesMan for a group of mule dealers, who appeared before the Commission, advised that it is his understanding some of the contractors are shipping in stock from out of the State to be worked on their state highway contracts and he asked the Commission to look into this matter and request all contractors to use Arizona mules on their projects. A representative from Packard and Tanner advised the Commission that he had tried to do business with the Arizona mule dealers but had been unsuccessful in his attempt to get a sufficient number of good mules to take care of the work to be done on the Packard and Tanner projects. Commissioner Addams stated he wished to be placed on record as being opposed to contractors bringing in mules from outside of the state to be worked on state highway contracts. The Commission stated they were sure the contractors knew their attitude in this regard as they have requested that, prices and quality being equal, the contractors use Arizona stock, labor, material and supplies. It was regularly moved, seconded, and carried, that the Commission recess at 12:15 P. M., October 16, 1933, to reconvene at 2:00 P. M., the same day. The Commission reconvened at 2:00 P. M., October 16, 1933, all members present except Commissioner Dowell. Deputy State Engineer Smyth acted in the absence of State Engineer O'Connell.

Mr. E. P. O'Rourke, Traveling Agent for the Southern Pacific Company, ap-peared before the Highway Commis-sion and advised that the Marmon Her-rington truck purchased by the Depart-ment is being shipped from Minneapolis as far as El Paso via out-of-state com-petitors of the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railway Companies, which companies are large taxpayers in the State of Arizona. He pointed out that the Southern Pacific lines could be used from St. Louis to Phoenix and request-ed that inasmuch as other machinery purchased by the Department had been shipped over the Santa Fe Railway Lines, that the Commission ask the shipper to give the haul of the Marmon Herrington truck to the Southern Pa-cific Company from St. Louis to Phoe-nix. After a discussion of the matter, it was regularly moved by Commission-er Addams, seconded by Commissioner Barth, and unanimously carried, that the Purchasing Agent recommend to the representative given the order for the (Continued on Page 16)

12 ARIZONA HIGHWAYS NOVEMBER, 1933 STABILITY BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION

(Continued from Page 5) same time furnish to foreign countries an enormous quantity of surplus goods and services. The aggregate value of the goods and services thus furnished, for which we have small present hope of collecting pay, amounts to much more than enough to finance a public works program equal to our present one over a twelve year period.

Many of us here can look back far beyond the period of the European War and subsequent inflation and recall other economic circumstances that af-fected the employment of labor and that enabled us to store our surplus more or less effectively. The development of railroads, the mechanization of in dustry, the manufacture of motor ve-hicles, are all examples of what I have in mind. None of these circumstances, however, came as a result of economic planning, and none, it seems to me, was sufficient to afford that measure of stability in employment and security for the individual in his right to earn and live that might have been afforded if private industry had at all times been supplemented by means of an appro-priate and continuing national public works policy, always sensitive not only to the needs of labor, but also to the proper aspirations of our people for those services that build up community life.

Now, of course, there isn't any auto-matic gauge by means of which we may measure accurately either the needs of labor or the popular aspirations for public improvements. Unfortunately, the two are not synchronous. When there is plenty of work to occupy all of our labor we generally feel prosperous and set up a demand for public facilities to the point of extravagance. This is illustrated by the billion dollar annual road programs that we put on when employment was plentiful. On the other hand, when our surpluses mount and unemployment spreads in private indus-try our tendency is to do with less public service and to demand reduction in the expenses of government. We have no plane of reference by means of which public sentiment may orient itself along lines of sound political economy. Public sentiment has met this situation, however, by forcing the delegation of additional discretion to the executive, thus loosing a new rational influence in government.

Assuming that our National Administration, with its broadened powers and purposes, will continue responsive to the dictates of intelligence and devotion to the public weal, I venture to forecast that never again will the public works activity in this country be left wholly dependent upon the fickle sentiment of successive national and state legislative bodies. Public works programs will, of course, continue to be based on legislation, but I think that hereafter we may count on our legislators to accept the guidance of purposeful economic planning to a much greater extent than has ever been the case hereto-fore. Such planning, in my judgment, cannot fail to make provision for a continuing national highway program as the major feature of a rational public works policy. There is not a community in the entire country that does not feel the need for additional highway facilities. Small vision is required to see the probable opportunity for carrying on road work with profit to the public for at least a hundred years; and that with due allowance for accelerating the rate of construction as compared to the present.

To my mind there is much significance in those provisions of the Recovery Act and regulations that make city streets and railroad feeders eligible for Federal Aid. The old distinctions were largely artificial. Our transportation systems should be unified and co-ordinated. Streets, roads and railroads should each supplement the service furnished by the other, and it seems a proper function of the Federal Government to aid materially in developing toward that end. The gesture already made opens up an enormous field for public works and, at the same time, simplifies the problem of distributing activity without loss of effectiveness.

The question of how we are to pay for an ever expanding public works program, such as we are discussing, will no doubt impress itself upon the minds of many. My answer to that question is that we will pay for the public works whether we get them or not. I mean by this that we must somehow support our entire population, regardless of the proportion that we have unemployed. If, for example, we can produce merchantable commodities and services sufficient to meet the present demands of the whole population by employing only about three-fourths of our available man power, it is immediately apparent that we can properly and profitably employ the other one-fourth in the production of non-merchantable public improvements.

The fundamental question is: can the average American scale of living be improved and stabilized effectively through a continuing national public works policy rationally adapted at all times to the availability of labor as well as to our common aspirations? If the answer is yes, then there is warrant for the expenditure, and the matter of distributing the burden of cost becomes a problem in taxation, to be handled, of course, with appropriate regard to the underlying purpose of maintaining a stable economic structure. The actual manner of levying and collecting the revenues for public works does not appear to offer a serious problem when we consider the enormous sums that we levied and collected during and immediately following the period of the great war.Notwithstanding the bonds that were issued by our Government, we, as a people, actually paid our way as we went, including the advances made to foreign countries. When it was all over we had as much material wealth as we had before and we didn't owe anything to any other country. There had been changes in the distribution of wealth, of course, and all sorts of changes in relative values, but the average American citizen was better circumstanced economically at the end than he was at the beginning of the period in question. Presumably, therefore, we could have collected all that we spent during that period of heavy expenditure without issuing any bonds and without undue burden on our producers. In any event, it is apparent that under our social order, employment is the only satisfactory means for distributing generally the merchantables that we produce.

Another more or less classic objection to the idea of stabilizing employment by means of public work is based on the often repeated assertion that government cannot function economically. The answer to this objection is the record already established by the Federal Bureau of Public Roads and the state highway departments. If there is any privately owned utility in the United States that can show a comparable record of large scale public service furnished at a low rate of cost, its identity has not been disclosed. Public service investigations have been going on throughout the country and many privately owned utilities have been continuously on the defensive for the last several years. If they could have developed a favorable comparison with the state highway service, it seems to me that they unquestionably would have done so.In my state, investigations made by our Public Service Commission have disclosed, for example, that the electrical utility companies have investments in the state aggregating within approximately 10 per cent of the state's invest-

(Continued on Page 23)