316 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
of government at that time lent itself to small units of administration. 
The principal functions were the protection of life and property, 
the administration of justice, the distribution of poor relief, the 
construction and repair of neighborhood roads, and the supervision 
of local schools. Now the ease of communication makes small 
political units unnecessary, and the changed character of the services 
renders these units uneconomical as administrative districts. Finally 
a broader concept of government has narrowed the field of local 
responsibility. There has thus been a steady, but generally belated, 
transfer of functions from smaller to larger jurisdictions. The 
movement has failed to keep abreast of the changes in economic and 
social conditions and of the more enlightened concept of jurisdic- 
tional responsibility, because of inertia, political resistance, and a 
narrow and mistaken concept of local self-government. The result 
is that the present distribution of functions, in most States, is out of 
nar Ony with either the ability to support them or the scope of the 
eneiit. 
Perhaps the needed adjustment has been more nearly accomplished 
in the case of road administration and support than in any other field. 
But even in this field the adjustment has nearly always been a belated 
one. It has been amply demonstrated that the township is an improper 
unit of road construction. Even if the State or county contributes to 
the cost, most townships lack the organization and equipment to 
build roads for automobile use. The township is still often used as a 
unit of road maintenance, but the same objections, with only slightly 
less force, obtain. The trend toward the county as the primary road 
unit is entirely justified. This trend is accompanied by the equally 
commendable one toward full State support of the main arteries. In 
fact, the State highway systems are being expanded to include an 
increasing mileage of the more important roads. Pennsylvania, for 
instance, since 1931 has taken over some 20,000 miles of local roads. 
Two States—North Carolina and Virginia—have gone the whole dis- 
tance and have made the construction and maintenance of all roads, 
except city streets, a State function. 
It is pretty generally recognized that the support of the primary 
roads is a proper function of the State. These main highways are 
avenues of intercommunity and interstate traffic and are only inci- 
dentally of local benefit. There is no such general agreement that 
all roads should be transferred to the State. Many view the North 
Carolina and Virginia experiment as radical and unwarranted. Indeed, 
those who endorse this degree of State centralization admit that there 
are still many local roads which are primarily of local benefit. Never- 
theless they defend both State administration and State support. 
State administration is defended on the ground that it is economical 
and efficient, and if North Carolina’s experience the first year is a fair 
test such is the case. The State highway commission, through the 
employment of 3,700 prisoners, was able to maintain 45, 000 miles of 
local roads for $6, 000,000, whereas the cost to the counties had been 
about $8,000,000. Moreover, according to the testimony of the rural 
mail carriers, farmers, and others, the roads were never kept in better 
shape. State support is defended on the ground that the highways 
should be maintained by those who use them; that is, by the motor- 
ists, and thatif the roads are to be supported from gasoline and motor- 
et CRORE BS 
