LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION 103 



this is forunate, in view of the fact that it is less difficult to obtain 

 legislative action than to obtain constitutional amendment. There- 

 fore, even though one legislative body may alter what a former body 

 has approved, there appears to be greater promise of constructive 

 improvement in local government by having the mechanics of such 

 government contained in the public laws rather than in the state con- 

 stitution. 



One of New Hampshire's statesmen remarked, "A town can do 

 anything just so long as it's legal." Local governmental units are 

 creatures of the state, and, accordingly, it is by permissive legislation 

 that much discretionary business is transacted locally. However, this 

 permissive home rule characterizes the town as something more than 

 a subdivision or agency of the state. The very term "state-local re- 

 lationship" is suggestive of a mutual interdependence rather than a 

 complete subordination of local units. The problem here is not so 

 much concerned with the extent of home rule as it is with the manner 

 in which the state controls local functions or shares in the administra- 

 tive supervision of these functions. Unciuestionably the trend in New 

 Hampshire is toward greater state supervision over its subdivisions in 

 administering public services. Except in the field of public welfare, 

 once largely a town responsibility, any trend toward shifting the ad- 

 ministration of public services from town to county is virtually non- 

 existent. 



The amount of state control and of supervision varies extremely 

 among the local services. State-shared revenues have no particular 

 reference to state control, and grants-in-aid and joint funds are not 

 in every case the criteria, although the latter may be contingent upon 

 compliance to regulations established by a centralized agency which 

 receives its authority from the state. 



New Hampshire highways are divided into three major systems : 

 (1) the primary system, (2) the secondary system, and (3) the town 

 system. Approximately 70 percent of the total mileage is in the town 

 system. The primary and secondary systems are financed largely out 

 of revenues derived from a three-cent state tax on gasoline and from 

 motor vehicle registration fees and licenses. The maintenance of 

 town roads is largely financed from the local property tax. Towns 

 contribute nothing to the primary system and the state contributes 

 but a small amount to town maintenance. This state contribution is 

 a grant-in-aid for the purpose of equalizing revenues and is distributed 

 on the basis of taxable wealth per mile of town roads. No state super- 

 vision accompanies this aid, and there is no provision for withholding 

 it from rural towns for the purpose of enforcing compliance with a 

 minimum standard. Less than 50 rural towns are receiving this 

 grant, and in total it amounts to less than one per cent of the expendi- 

 tures of the state highway department. 



The construction of highways and of bridges in the secondary 

 system is financed by joint funds, in which the state's share varies 

 inversely with the amount of taxable wealth in the town. Four-fifths 

 of the state aid for the improvement of town roads, also a joint fund, 

 is allocated to towns according to miles of town road, and one-fifth 



