Numbers versus Names

For interstate motorists in the 1920s, the named trails were the way to navigate around the country. A 1923 road atlas included a one-page “Midget Map of the Transcontinental Trails of the United States.” It showed the line of the following named interstate trails:

Atlantic Highway	Atlantic Pacific Highway
Bankhead Highway	Black and Yellow Trail
Colorado to Gulf Highway	Columbia River Highway
Custer Battlefield Highway	Dallas Canadian Denver
Detroit-Lincoln-Denver	Dixie Highway
Dixie Overland Highway	Evergreen National Highway
George Washington National Highway	Jackson Highway
Jefferson Highway	King of Trails Highway
Kings Transcontinental Highway	Lee Highway
Lincoln Highway	Lone Star Route
Lone Star Trail	Meridian Highway
Mississippi Valley Highway	National Old Trails Road
National Park to Park Highway	National Parks Highway
National Roosevelt Midland Trail	Old Oregon Trail
Old Spanish Trail	Ozark Trails
Pacific Highway	Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway
South West Trail	Theodore Roosevelt International Trail
Victory Highway	Yellowstone Trail.

(The map is on this Website at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/midgetmap.cfm.)

The named trail associations had served an important purpose in the 1910s when many States lacked a highway department or had an ineffective one. With the growing number of vehicles on the roads, the associations helped focus attention on their condition, identified interstate roads for use of motorists, and sought increased funding for good roads projects. Starting with the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, but especially after the Federal Highway Act of 1921, the Federal road agency and the State highway agencies, now revitalized and professional, played a strong role in road improvement. Further, the public strongly supported the idea of good roads, and Federal and State road programs were better able to provide them. Basically, they were providing what people at the time thought of as the interstate system of two-lane paved roads.

By the early 1920s, as explained in a 1925 report, State and Federal highway officials realized that the named trail associations had outlived their usefulness, in view of “conditions which had existed for several years in connection with the expanding program of highway construction, and which were becoming aggravated as sentiment in favor of road construction spread and the building program assumed a more and more definite order and system”:

The conditions flowed from the well-intended efforts and the enthusiasm of local and commercial interests to secure the obviously desirable and necessary fruition of the road building program of the country. Numerous organizations, commonly known as trail associations, had promoted the marking of through routes, some extending entirely across the United States, some interstate in character and extending across two or more States, others of a more or less local significance only. In some cases the promotion of routes was done for the purpose of furthering road building by arousing, developing and maintaining local public opinion. Some were promoted more or less directly for commercial purposes, many were organized and maintained to promote and advertise some purely localized interest. Frequently the routes selected were chosen to develop scenic beauties, and had little thought of any other commercial value than that of leading tourists through particular sections of the country, and bringing to those sections the advantage of the tourist trade. Occasionally a route was laid out along very direct lines in an effort to secure the construction of short and direct routes between important centers of population. In a great many cases the routes were the result of an entirely selfish promotion to exploit good roads sentiment and provide salaries for paid officials of the various organizations.

These routes were named by their respective organizations after some person of distinction in the locality or in American history, for some place of greater or less note, or for memorial or sentimental reasons. Some undertook to perpetuate historic trails of early fame. In most cases some attempt to mark the routes was made in return for the local support given to the organization; in a few cases actual road construction was furthered by the organization. In most instances, however, a more or less careless marking was all that a community got for its outlay, which ranged from a few hundred dollars annually to as much as $5,000 in extreme cases.

BPR’s files contained evidence of at least 250 named trails:

These were sponsored by at least one hundred regularly organized associations supporting some kind of headquarters and issuing maps, advertising, or other promotion material. It is impossible to estimate the cost to the public of these activities; but when the 150 trails are omitted for which no record of a definite organization appears in the record, it may conservatively be estimated that the 100 active organizations handled at least $6,000 per year, or a total of $600,000.

Over time, several problems had developed. Overlap was one problem. Many trails used the same roadway. In places, such as mountain passes, numerous routes followed the same path. The National Old Trails Road was no exception. For example, the Victory Highway shared the route of the National Old Trails Road in the east. Ben Blow, vice president and manager of the Victory Highway Association, described the origins and goals of the route in a 1924 article:

In the later part of 1921, a little group of road enthusiasts met in Topeka, Kansas, and incorporated The Victory Highway Association for the purpose of developing a new transcontinental highway line between New York and San Francisco as a national memorial undertaking in honor of those men and women who served their country during the World War.

That this undertaking might be worthy, plans were developed for marking the selected line in such a manner as no other road in the highway of the world had ever been marked, the selected design, of everlasting bronze, being an American eagle poised over its nest and young in an attitude of defiance, symbolical of that protection which this country gives its people.

The well-known Lincoln Highway already had a route from New York City to San Francisco that had been identified in 1913. To use the same termini, the new association had to identify a different routing that motorists might prefer to the better known route. The group chose a route from Battery Park in New York City, leaving the city by the St. George ferry to Staten Island, then to New Jersey by the Tottenville-Perth Amboy ferry and across New Jersey to Philadelphia:

From Philadelphia through Chester, Penn., Wilmington, Delaware, and then to Baltimore where connection is made with the National Old Trail as the selected line of the Victory to 50 miles beyond St. Louis, beyond which up to the present time, road improvement has been non-existent but where, now, a highway is in process of development between St. Louis and Kansas City — the Victory Highway line — which is 41 miles shorter than the shortest existent highway and 23 miles shorter than either of the two shortest rail lines. The development of this line was an engineering triumph due to the tenacity of purpose maintained by Theodore Gary, Chairman of the Missouri Highway Commission, who believed that the shortest line between two points was the logical way and who would not permit road deviation to adjacent towns by any political influences, but was governed solely by topographical conditions in aligning State Route 2, the St. Louis-Kansas City section of the Victory Highway. [Blow, Ben, “The Victory Highway,” Good Roads, June 1924, pages 159-160, 186]

The Victory Highway was a strong rival to the Lincoln Highway in the western States. The two associations became bitter rivals over designation of a Federal-aid route across the Utah/Nevada border. The Victory Highway won the rivalry by adopting a route across the Great Salt Desert through Wendover. BPR was involved in the unique project known as the Wendover Cut-off. The prominence of the Victory Highway was partly a result of strong support from the California State Automobile Association (CSAA), the northern equivalent of the Automobile Club of Southern California. The northern group saw the Victory Highway as a way of drawing traffic, and tourist dollars, from the southern part of the State. Although the Victory Highway Association remained based in Topeka, the group appointed a CSAA member to be the western manager and designated the CSAA headquarters as the Victory Highway Association’s western headquarters.

The 6-mile Wendover Cut-off was completed across the Great Salt Lake Desert with a ceremony on June 18, 1925, that included Secretary of Agriculture William M. Jardine, Utah Governor George H. Dern, and Nevada Governor J. G. Scrugham. “Dressed in white overalls, the two governors and the Secretary of Agriculture cleared away the last salt barrier in highway traffic between Utah and Nevada.” [“Wendover Cut-Off Makes Utah California’s Next-Door Neighbor,” American Motorist, July 1925, pages 8-9, 44, 54])

Other less-prominent named trails also had adopted portions of the National Old Trails Road. In Missouri, parts of it were included in two diagonal transcontinental routes: the George Washington National Highway (Savannah, Georgia, to Seattle, Washington) and the Glacier Trail (Jacksonville, Florida, to Los Angeles). The Atlantic-Pacific Highway, from New York to Los Angeles, shared the National Old Trails Road in several States. From Gallup, New Mexico, to Los Angeles, part of the National Old Trails Road was included in the National Park-to-Park Highway. The Evergreen Highway adopted the National Old Trails Road between Kingman and Seligman, Arizona. Several trails shared Raton Pass, as noted earlier.

The same was true for other routes:

Specific cases were studied . . . in which as much as 70 per cent of the mileage of one route lapped others and sometimes as many as eleven different marked trails were involved in parts of greater or less length in a single trail. One section of road is known to have carried eight different sets of route markers for a considerable distance. Two and three different sets of markers on the same road were common; and four and even five sets of markers were not infrequently found. This confusion finally resulted in complaints from the public that road marking was becoming in many cases more annoying than helpful.

Route duplication was another issue because “it was almost as common to find two or more separate roads bearing the same designation.” The Lincoln Highway and Victory Highway were an example, but routes such as the Dixie Highway (on a dual line between Michigan and Florida) and the New and Old Santa Fe Trails were another:

One of the most vigorously promoted routes has at several points three alternate lines, and over most of its length there exists a duplicate location.

This resulted from the fact that in promoting the route and inviting local support interested organizations made their layout where they could secure local support, and being morally too weak to reject financial support offered them by an alternate route, they accepted both routes and both sets of contributions. In a great many cases such alternate routes exist among the marked trails, and very few of them were entirely free from this objectionable feature. There are also routes which branch and are a collection of routes rather than a single route. This condition of having two or more different roads carrying the same route designation was as confusing as having several designations applying to the same route, and was equally productive of complaint.

Another problem, faulty location, resulted from promoters following “the line of least resistance financially . . . . The line was routed where the most financial support could be secured.” As a result, the location and alignment “could not be defended on economic or engineering grounds.”

Further, the named trail associations were resistant to correction or change. The associations often objected to State highway department plans for State highway systems that did not include some or all of the trail. “The interests back of the individual route protested the interests of the community as a whole, and exerted their influence to make good showing to their supporters regardless of the real intrinsic merit of their location. This meant that faulty locations and improperly adjusted priority of construction were threatening to affect seriously the road-building program.”

These concerns applied to the named trails as a whole:

There were conspicuous cases of public spirited work, by men of wide vision, who under careful management were promoting worthily the construction of connected roads, and doing much to improve highway transport conditions in the country, but these organizations working independently and having no co-ordinating agency could not be expected to develop a unified and correlated system of routes. [Report of Joint Board on Interstate Highways, October 30, 1925, Approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, November 18, 1925, pages 5-8]

For these and other reasons, State highway officials realized that a new system of marking would have to be found to help motorists travel around the country. On November 24, 1924, AASHO adopted a resolution on marking known as Resolution No. 5:

Whereas, this Association has adopted the report of the Subcommittee on Traffic Control and Safety, recommending the immediate selection of transcontinental and interstate routes from the Federal-aid system, said roads to be continuously designated by means of standard highway marking signs and protected by standard traffic warning signs; and
Whereas, this system of highways when established and marked will satisfy the demand for marked routes on the part of transcontinental and interstate traffic, thus meeting the need which had been met in the past in a measure by the marked trails established by the reputable trails associations; and
Whereas, many individuals have sought to capitalize the popular demand for interstate or cross-country routes by organizing trails, collecting large sums of money from our citizens and giving practically no service in return, with resulting discredit to the reputable trails associations which have heretofore rendered distinct public service by stimulating highway improvement, maintenance, and marking; now, therefore, be it
Resolved: That this Association hereby recommends to the several States that the reputable trails associations now existing be permitted to continue their markings during their period of usefulness, pending the establishment of the proposed marking system, unless such action shall conflict with the marking systems and policies now in force in the several States; and be it further
Resolved: That no trail association be permitted to establish further routes on State or Federal-aid routes; and be it further
Resolved: That we hereby warn the citizens of this nation to investigate carefully the responsibility of trails organizers and demand convincing evidence insuring proper expenditure of funds before contributing to or otherwise supporting such agencies. [Resolutions Adopted by The American Association of State Highway Officials At Annual Session November 20, 1924, American Highways, January 1925, pages 42-43]

AASHO called on the Secretary of Agriculture to appoint a joint board of BPR and State highway officials to "cooperate in formulating and promulgating a system of numbering and marking highways of interstate character.

Resolution No. 5 did not specify the “reputable trails associations” or indicate how to identify them. Susan Croce Kelly, in her biography of Cyrus A. Avery, at the time the chairman of the Oklahoma Department of Highways, speculated that the reputable associations included members of the Associated Highways of America (see part 3 of this history), including three roads that Avery was associated with — Albert Pike Highway (from Hot Springs, Arkansas, to Colorado Springs, Colorado, via Tulsa), Ozark Trails (St. Louis to Las Vegas, New Mexico, via Tulsa), and White River Trail (Branson, Missouri, through Springfield to Tulsa). [Kelly, Susan Croce, Father of Route 66: The Story of Cy Avery, University of Oklahoma Press, 2014, page 133]

On February 20, 1925, Secretary of Agriculture Howard M. Gore approved appointment of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways, as recommended by AASHO. He appointed the members of the Joint Board on March 2, just 2 days before becoming Governor of West Virginia. He stated that he was taking this action, at the unanimous request of the State highway agencies because "the general public in traveling over the highways through the several States encounters considerable confusion because of the great variety of direction signs and danger signs." He added:

This move . . . is just another proof that the Federal Government in its cooperation with the States is doing a vital work which would not otherwise be accomplished if entire dependence were placed upon the States themselves.

BPR Chief MacDonald was chairman while BPR’s chief of design, E. W. James, would be the Secretary. The BPR's Consulting Highway Engineer, A. B. Fletcher, was the agency's third representative. The State highway agencies were represented by 22 top State officials. AASHO's Executive Secretary, William C. Markham, also attended the Joint Board's meetings.

On February 26, 1925, Judge Lowe wrote to Chief MacDonald to express concern about the proposal:

I am just in receipt of a wire from Washington telling me that pursuant to a resolution adopted at the last Session of the State Highway Boards held at Oakland, California, some action was taken regarding the sign-posting of roads. I was told at the time that they excepted from the provisions of the resolution, the Lincoln Highway and the N. O. T. Road, for the reason, as I understood it, that these two organizations were, and have been from the beginning, actively at work trying to get the road built. Anyway, whatever the exact action may have been at that convention, they now tell me in this telegram that the Agricultural Department is in sympathy with the action of that meeting.

I am writing simply to lay the facts before you, which are, very briefly, that when this Association was organized (the first of its kind in the United States), we began the active agitation not for promoting only, but to build the road. Our efforts have always been to work up public sentiment so as to get the road actually constructed. The progress, under the circumstances, has really been wonderful. That portion of the road from Washington to the Mississippi, is the longest continuously paved road in the world. There is not a break in it, and it will undoubtedly be completed across Missouri this year. We have it, perhaps, three-fourths hard surfaced the balance of the way to the Pacific. We have it sign-posted with metallic signs on steel posts set in cement from Los Angeles to the western line of Ohio, and the Highway Board of Ohio has put a metal plate immediately above the numerals on her sign-posts, “National Road”, which is so nearly [an] identical name that it does not mislead the traveling public.

I sympathize altogether with the objections to indiscriminate sign-posting of roads. They are not only annoying, but in many cases misleading. I do not object, of course, to the Highway Boards for adopting the numerical system, that is convenient and if any Trans-Continental Road was numerically sign-posted from beginning to end by the same number, it might answer every purpose. But a road like ours running through twelve states, the average tourist would never know, when he went out of one state into another, whether he was pursuing a Trans-Continental line or some other route, because they are all numbered differently. For this reason, aside from any sentimental reason, it seems to me that the sign-posting of the N.O.T. should not be torn down and destroyed, and I can see no reasonable objection to our continuing to maintain such signs.

Chief Engineer P. St. J. Wilson of BPR replied on March 4 to assure Judge Lowe that:

Your letter will be brought to the attention of the Joint Board at an appropriate time. The members of the Board have just been appointed and the organization is not yet complete. [National Archives at College Park, Maryland}

Developments Along the Road

While BPR and the State highway officials were planning to find an alternative to the named trail method of designating interstate roads, the States the National Old Trails Road passed through continued working on the road.

In early 1925, Division VIII of the California State Highway Commission, in cooperation with the Santa Fe Railroad, completed work on removing a dangerous rail-highway crossing on the National Old Trails Road in San Bernardino County near Oro Grande between Victorville and Barstow:

Some three miles of the state highway have been straightened out and graded and a dangerous grade crossing eliminated by the building of an underpass . . . .

Many accidents have occurred at this point in recent years. The railroad crossed the highway after rounding a sharp curve, and likewise the highway approached the railroad on a sharp turn that entirely concealed the tracks.

The Santa Fe Company has been straightening out and double tracking its lines between Los Angeles and the east and an understanding was reached between the commission and the railroad that whenever the work was done in the vicinity of Oro Grande, the state highway would be graded at the same time. The highway followed the winding course of the railroad and crossed it on the curve as described above.

The cost of the underpass, which was built by the railroad company, was shared by the railroad and the state. This expenditure and the three miles of grading being entirely new construction was financed from the state highway fund. Both the railroad and the traveling public will benefit from this important improvement. [“Dangerous Grade Crossing Eliminated on Old Trails Highway,” California Highways, March 1925]

The Albuquerque Morning Journal reported on a challenge of car versus train:

A wager that he could better the time of the California limited between Albuquerque and Winslow was won by E. J. Tilson of Winslow, Ariz., on February 17, according to a letter written by Mr. Tilson to the Morning Journal. In his letter, Mr. Tilson says that he submits the story to the Journal to illustrate the good condition which the roads of New Mexico are now in.

The motorist claims that he completed the 302 miles from Albuquerque to Winslow over various detours and a road with which he was unacquainted, in the actual running time of eight hours and 15 minutes. The actual running time from Albuquerque to Gallup he gives as four hours and 25 minutes, which is fifteen minutes better than that made by train No. 3 on the Santa Fe railroad.

The trip was made in a roadster with the top up. Mr. Tilson said that he had no tire trouble on the trip. He further says that he can verify the run by various parties in Albuquerque, Gallup, Holbrook and Winslow. [“Autoist Races to Beat Time of No. 3 Train,” New Mexico Highway Journal, March 1925, page 9]

The D.A.R Continental Congress — 1925

When D.A.R. held its annual continental congress in April 1925, Mrs. John Trigg Moss delivered a report on the work of the National Old Trails Road Committee. As reflected in her 1924 report, National Chairman Moss was taking the committee in a different direction than her predecessors. They had some success, as she acknowledged, but their main goals — passage of legislation and posting of road signs — had not been achieved and seemed unlikely to succeed and, in the case of signs, impractical if they did.

Mrs. Moss would prove to be the most successful of the National Chairmen of the National Old Trails Road Committee. The former Arline B. Nichols was born on December 24, 1876, in St. Louis. A biographical sketch stated that, “she had been a teacher of the deaf before her marriage to John Trigg Moss in 1902.” She had two sons, John Trigg Moss, Jr. (born March 7, 1903) and Harry Nichols Moss (September 17, 1912). She began her D.A.R. work with the Cornelia Greene D.A.R. Chapter in St. Louis. She was elected State Regent in October 1917 (confirmed April 1918). She retired from that post in 1920, and was elected to the post of Vice-President General during the Thirtieth Annual Congress in April 1921. As noted earlier, the President General, Mrs. Anthony Wayne Cook, appointed Mrs. Moss to the post of National Chairman of the National Old Trails Road Committee in 1924. [Bauer, Fern Iola, The Historic Treasure Chest of the Madonna of the Trail Monuments, John McEnaney Printing, Revised edition, 1986, pages 6-7, 88]

Mrs. Moss’s 1925 report began:

Another year has passed into the realm of yesterdays, and your National Chairman will let you judge the amount of progress made since Congress a year ago. At that time a resolution was unanimously adopted to set aside or discontinue all former plans of erecting markers on the National Old Trails Road and to adopt a new marking system — one that seemed conservative and in keeping with the dignity of our Society; within reason from a financial standpoint and fulfilling the long-expressed desire or pledge to erect markers that would be lasting memorials to our early pioneer ancestors, who blazed the old trails that have become our great system of highways, recognized and approved by the government. The National Old Trails Road (Road No. 1) is the main ocean-to-ocean highway and is termed the “backbone” of the entire system.

The route taken by the National Old Trails Road was not chosen by the Daughters of the American Revolution, nor did they have any voice in the matter. Locating the different trails, or roads, was the work of the National Highways Association, the National Old Trails Road Association, State Highway Commissions, and many other State and national organizations solely interested in the National Highway Movement. If, in their better judgment, the main cross-country ocean-to-ocean highway, to be known as the National Old Trails Road, comprised Braddock’s road, the Old Cumberland Road, the Boone’s Lick Road, the Santa Fe Trail, and the Kearney Trail, running from Washington, D.C., to California, then cannot we, Daughters of the American Revolution, accept the route without a question and proceed to mark it as planned, whether or not the road runs through your State, or whether it does not pass through certain States that formerly laid claim to this distinction. It is a national institution and the history of this road remains the history of the development of our country. The Daughters of the American Revolution are marking it for history’s sake and as an “In Memoriam” to the great army of Revolutionary ancestors who had the great vision of a great land of life and freedom to hand down to posterity . . . .

The time is now at hand for us to definitely take hold and consummate the pledge of last year and of all previous years. Please bear in mind that from the very inception of this National Old Trails work it has always been and still is a national project and does not belong exclusively to those States through which the main ocean-to-ocean highway runs. As a national project, it should have not only the endorsement of, but the earnest support, morally and financially, of every State Society in our organization.

In 1924, Mrs. Moss reported that she had studied the committee’s records and determined that its activities were unsustainable. Now, in 1925, she explained her activities since adoption of the resolution:

Last summer your National Chairman turned her attention to the study of every phase of the National Old Trails work, and went to Kansas City for the purpose of conferring with Judge J. M. Lowe, National President of the National Old Trails Road Association, who gave a very hearty and enthusiastic approval of the new plan or program the Daughters had voted to follow.

She then divided the States into five sections, each with a National Vice-Chairmen in charge:

• Mrs. Herbert M. Gault, of Maryland — New England (14 States: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia Maryland, District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania).
• Mrs. Richmond P. Barnes of New Mexico — Southeastern (10 States: Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi).
• Mrs. William R. Van Tuyle of Kansas — Central Section (8 States: Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana).
• Mrs. Lipscomb Norvell of Texas — Middle Western States (8 States: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and Wyoming).
• Miss Ida Meyers of California — Western Section (9 States: California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana).

Chairman Moss’s idea was a single monument in each National Old Trails State:

Much time has been spent by your National Chairman in considering sizes and shapes and styles of markers and monuments as well as materials of stone, cement, etc. A request was made for designs, to be sent to your National Chairman before April 1925, but to date only one State, namely, Tennessee, submitted two designs. Your National Chairman also has a design to submit, the work of Nancy Coonesman Hahn, the young sculptoress of note, who at the present time lives in St. Louis.

On the first of October, Mrs. Moss had sent a letter to every State Chairman and a copy to each State Regent containing “a copy of the resolution adopted at the Thirty-third Congress and asked for a ten-cent per capita contribution to raise the balance of the necessary amount to erect the twelve markers at approximately one thousand dollars each”:

The Treasurer General’s report for Congress last April gave the amount in the National Old Trail’s fund as $4,876.65. This year, to April 1, 1925, $2,475.12 has been contributed, making a total of $7,351.77 . . . .

Your National Chairman feels that the first objective should be the completion of the fund, believing that a suitable design can be determined upon and the locations for the markers decided by vote of the States in the several sections as soon as the fund is completed. If the States will come forward and pledge their quotas, we may proceed with the actual work this year. Co-operation is the one word needed here to interpret success in this work — not half-hearted luke-warm co-operation, but interested, whole-hearted, and enthusiastic co-operation, that is consistent with the erection of memorials to our honored forebears:

For don’t we eternally breathe a prayer on the evening breeze
And thank God for our heritage from these?

Mrs. Moss also discussed some of her more routine activities:

Many letters have been written by your National Chairman, and 200 copies of the National Old Trails Map, supplied by the National Old Trails Road Association, together with other printed matter, have been sent to members upon request. A copy of the joint resolution No. 79, as presented to the House of Representatives by Mr. Jost, was sent to each State Chairman. A copy of the “National Old Trails Road,” or “The Great Historic Highway of America,” was sent to each Vice-Chairman and each State Chairman by the author, Judge J. M. Lowe, of Kansas City, Missouri

She recognized that every State had historic old trails, “a relic of those early days, and all of these should be preserved and marked in the course of time.” The D.A.R., however, “should first bend all their efforts to the erection of their memorial markers on the National Old Trails Road and complete this tribute as a national organization.” When that tribute was completed, “let every State follow out a program for the marking of their own historic trails, which time and traditions have made dear to the heart.” [Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Continental Congress of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, April 1925, pages 235-238]

On April 23, D.A.R. members “marched past President and Mrs. Coolidge in a colorful procession representing many States at the reception in their honor given at the White House yesterday.” President General Cook led the procession:

The President and Mrs. Coolidge stood in the blue room to receive these descendants of the heroes of 1776 and a cordial word of greeting and a hand clasp accorded by both to each Daughter. So great was the number received that few could linger to exchange more than a greeting, but the President and Mrs. Coolidge recognized many friends in the Vermont delegation and others of the New England groups.

After passing down the reception line the visitors went out into the grounds of the White House, which had been opened for their benefit, and strolled about the beautiful lawns, enjoying the novel spectacle and particularly the colonial gardens. [“White House Doors Are Open Wide to 5,000 D.A.R. Guests,” The Washington Post, April 24, 1925, page 1]

The Joint Board on Interstate Highways

The Joint Board’s first meeting took place on April 20 and 21, 1925, in Chief MacDonald's office at BPR headquarters in Washington. Chief MacDonald was present, along with BPR’s E. W. James, the Joint Board’s secretary, and 18 State highway officials. Three State members of the Joint Board were not present (from California, Oregon, and West Virginia).

The goal was to decide how to designate interstate routes, adopt a uniform system of marking such routes, including signs for identifying the roads and for traffic control, and secure uniform legislation if needed to provide for such markings.

For designating routes, the agenda covered several points:

Shall trail organizations be recognized by the Board —

1. By hearings?
2. By submitting briefs?
3. By no method?

Shall designated routes be named or numbered?

Shall a mechanical and prearranged system of numbering, or shall a promiscuous system of numbering be adopted?

Shall an effort be made to establish a correlation between other numbered State routes and the designated route?

Shall the Board recommend that after the Interstate routes have been designated, trail associations in good standing, operating without profit, be authorized by permission of the respective State highway departments, to name and mark routes for sentimental, memorial, or patriotic reasons, under restrictions covering:

• Type of sign,
• Avoidance of overlapping routes,
• Choice of a single route,
• Continuity of route,
• Permission of all States concerned and
• Routes to follow single numbered route.

The Joint Board also was to adopt policies regarding signs and markers as well as determine the organization of the Joint Board and the nature of its meetings.

As the meeting began, Chairman MacDonald asked each member to state their views on the proposed agenda. According to minutes of the April 20 meeting, the State officials supported the designation of interstate routes and uniform marking of the selected roads, but several commented on the named trails.

William F. Williams of Massachusetts:

Believes that names such as “Yellowstone Trail” “Gold Star Trail” or “Liberty Trail” should be kept off the highways.

Preston G. Peterson of Utah:

Believes in the elimination of trail organizations.

B. H. Piepmeier of Missouri:

Does not think trail organizations should be recognized, although they have done some good work.

Frank T. Sheets of Illinois:

Believes trail organizations have long ceased to be useful.

Lou A. Boulay of Ohio:

Believes trail organizations should not be recognized.

After the survey of leaders, including Frank F. Rogers, Michigan’s commissioner of highways and president of AASHO, the minutes continued:

Discussion by the Joint Board on the elimination of trail organizations.

Mr. F. F. Rogers of Michigan: “I suggest that Mr. James read Resolution No. 5 regarding trail marking, as adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials at its last annual convention.”

Resolution No. 5 read by Mr. James.

Mr. F. T. Sheets of Illinois: “I move that it is the sense of this Body that Resolution No. 5 regarding trail marking, as adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials at its last annual convention in California, be adopted as the policy of this Board.”

Motion made, seconded and carried.

They also discussed whether to publicize the Joint Board’s proceedings. “After discussion, it was agreed that such resolutions as were adopted by the Board would be made public.”

On the second day, April 21, the Joint Board convened at 9:45 a.m. They discussed selection of routes to be included in the system. E.W. James pointed out:

The original Federal aid system was drawn up only after we had held group meetings. I think if we could have group meetings as a start, inviting to each group meeting not only the members of this Joint Board, but also representative [sic] from each State in the group, it would be advisable.

Frank Sheets put the comment in the form of a motion:

I move that the Chairman of this Joint Board be asked to group the several States in such manner as will best promote the study of the roads to be selected and marked under the supervision of this Board; that group meetings be held at which representatives from each of the States involved and from the Bureau of Public Roads be present, at which meeting or subsequent meeting a study of the proposed routes to be selected and marked in each State be made; that joint meetings of related groups be held when necessary; that these groups report their recommendations to this Board for review, adjustment and ultimate adoption.

Motion made, seconded and carried.

Chairman MacDonald followed up:

When group meetings are called it would be a good idea to notify all the States in a group and tell them if they wish to have a representative present at their own expense they may do so.

With regard to tentative schedule of group meetings: Meeting of Western Group at San Francisco May 15th; Meeting of Mississippi Valley Group at Kansas City May 27th; Meeting of Lakes Group at Chicago June 3rd; Meeting of Southern Group at Atlanta, June 8th; Meeting of North Atlantic Group at New York City June 15th; and Meeting of New England Group at Boston June 18th.

After the first series of group meetings I think we will be very close together.

Susan Croce Kelly commented:

They agreed unanimously that publicity and public hearings would lead only to gridlock and failure, so one of their first decisions was that while they would hold regional meetings, there would be no open-to-the-public discussions and there would be no prepublicity — reports of the meetings would only be distributed afterward. [Kelly, page 138]

The Joint Board also agreed unanimously on a shield design for signs to be placed on the designated highways based on the official U.S. shield. As James later recalled:

At a Board meeting I was sitting at the side of Frank Rogers of Michigan. As we discussed a possible distinctive and unique marker for all the Federal Aid System, he doodled and produced a sort of shield. He handed it to me. I think I improved on his design by drawing a picture of our present shield. He took it back, presented it to the Board as just what was wanted, and that was that. [Kelly, page 140; see “E. W. James on designating the Federal-aid system and developing the U.S. numbered highway plan” on this Website.]

The members of the Joint Board had come to the initial meeting with State maps showing which roads they wanted to include in the plan. James had BPR’s mapping team prepare regional maps showing the members’ choices. He then sent the maps to the members as the starting place for consideration during the regional meetings. [Kelly, page 140; First Full Meeting of The Joint Board For Designating Highways Held in the Office of The Chief of The Bureau Of Public Roads at Washington, D.C., National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

During the course of discussions during the 2-day meeting, the Joint Board adopted several resolutions:

Moved that it be the sense of this meeting that we adopt a uniform system of through routes for the United States, based on numbering and that a uniform shape and type of route marker, to be adopted later, be selected for the marking of these routes.

Moved that it be the sense of this Body that Resolution No. 5 regarding trail marking, as adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials at its last annual convention in California, be adopted as the policy of this Board.

Moved that the Secretary of this meeting request each State to submit for the consideration of this Board a design for a marker of national significance to be acted on later.

Moved that it be the sense of this Body that the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Traffic Control and Safety of American Association of State Highway Officials, as adopted by said Association at its last annual meeting at San Francisco be adopted as the preliminary standards for traffic warning signs to be used by this Body; except that the specification as to the use of lemon yellow as the color for the background of said signs be determined after further investigation by this Body; and, be it the sense of this Body further that the standards as finally perfected and adopted by this Body be recommended to the American Association of State Highway Officials and other highway officials having jurisdiction over the highways of this country as standards for their adoption.

Moved that it be the sense of this Body that each State, where the authority does not exist, empower its State Highway Department to provide a uniform system of marking and signing for the roads under State jurisdiction.

Moved that it be the sense of this Body that no discussion along the line of numbers to be adopted for these routes be had until the system of arterial highways for the United States is selected.

Moved that the Chairman of this Joint Board be asked to group the several States in such manner as will best promote the study of the roads to be selected and marked under the supervision of this Board; that group meetings be held at which representatives from each of the States involved and from the Bureau of Public Roads be present, at which meeting or subsequent meeting a study of the proposed routes to be selected and marked in each State be made; that joint meetings of related groups be held when necessary; that those groups report their recommendations to this Board for review, adjustment and ultimate adoption.

Moved that it be the sense of this Board that in laying out the highways to be recommended for adoption as part of the proposed uniformly marked system of interstate highways each State be requested to bear in mind the following purposes:

The connection of important centers with those reasonably direct lines which will be improved at the earliest possible date.

The dispersion of traffic over a sufficient number of alternate routes to promote safety and ease of maintenance.

The selection of approximately 1 per cent or less of the total highway mileage of the State as of greatest importance; of a second 1 per cent approximately as of secondary importance; and a third 1 per cent approximately as of tertiary importance; and that these suggested percentages be increased in sparsely settled States.

Moved that it is the sense of this Board to adopt as a preliminary and tentative standard for the interstate highways to be selected, the following color scheme: For all route markers and directional signs, black lettering on lemon yellow background, and that this tentative recommendation be submitted to each of the States for their comments and recommendations before being finally adopted by this Joint Board.

Moved that it is the sense of this Board that green be used as a luminous sign as indicated in Section A, No. 3, to indicate “go” instead of “look or attention.” (See Recommendation of American Association of State Highway Officials.)

Moved that it is the sense of this Board that the design here suggested be sent out to the different States asking them to submit their comments on this type of design for use as a marker on the interstate highways to be selected. (Copy of the design referred to will be furnished each State Highway Dept.)

Moved that it is the sense of this Board that specifications be drafted for the size and shape of warning signs and that tentative standards be set up for the directional signs. [Report of Joint Board on Interstate Highways, pages 14-15, 17-21]

On April 22, 1925, The New York Times carried the following article on page 11:

WARNS ON TRAIL FUNDS
Highway Board Advises Public to Investigate Appeals

WASHINGTON, April 21. — A warning was issued today by the Joint Board of State and Federal Highway Officials in session here against certain “trails associations” which, they charge, are in some cases mainly money-raising associations. The offending associations were not named.

“All citizens,” the board said, “are warned to investigate carefully the responsibility of trail organizers and demand convincing evidence insuring proper expenditures of funds before contributing to or otherwise supporting such agencies.

The board decided to permit “reputable trails associations” now existing to continue their markings of highways provided they do not conflict with State and Federal policies.

The officials agreed to adopt a uniform system for marking national highways and standard designs for cautionary and danger signs. Suggestions will be sought from the State highway departments.

An editorial in The Washington Post stated that the officials “reached a wise decision when they agreed to create a group of interstate roads to be known as United States highways”:

Good roads are a national asset of the highest importance. The Romans realized this truth fully, and accordingly throughout their far-flung provinces they constructed roads of such durability that many of them are in use to the present day . . . .

If good roads were a necessity then, they are a hundredfold more necessary now. The exigencies of an advanced and still advancing civilization require a ready, easy, cheap, and rapid transit for personal transportation and the interchange of commodities. To a large extent such facilities are supplied by railways and in a less degree by waterways; at no distant date they may be supplied by airways. But the highway was never ousted in the past, nor is it likely to be in the future, and at the present time the automobile and the motor truck make highways, and good ones at that, an essential adjunct to commerce and pleasure. The building of new and better roads is therefore imperatively demanded in the general interest both of the people of today and of posterity.

Referring to the plan to hold regional meetings on the new system, the editorial continued:

There is evidence here of good teamwork. They will assemble again in Washington in August to make a final decision on the selection of highways and of the signs by which they will be marked.

A great advance in intelligently coordinated road building may be looked for as the result of the methods and plans now being so carefully laid. [“United States Highways,” The Washington Post, April 25, 1925, page 6]

(Information about the Joint Board’s actions is adapted from the article “From Names to Numbers: The Origins of the U.S. Numbered Highway System” on this Website)

Across the Country Nonstop

In June 1925, stunt flier Leigh Wade, famous for his round-the-world flight in 1923, planned a non-stop automobile trip in a Packard 8 from Los Angeles to New York City. Linton Wells, a newspaper writer, would accompany Wade as co-driver. AAA agreed to sponsor the stunt. Wade explained the plan:

By non-stop drive, we mean that over this distance we expect to keep the wheels of the car moving and the motor running, a feat hitherto unattempted so far as we have been able to determine. We do not intend to break any speed records or violate any speed laws. We hope that we will be able to complete our run within seven days, averaging about twenty miles per hour for the distance.

We plan to receive gasoline, oil, water and food at specified places, slowing down to a few miles an hour and taking it aboard in containers. We do not anticipate tire trouble, having decided to use an oversize balloon of the best possible make.

Wade was to leave Los Angeles, drive to Phoenix, and then turn north to Albuquerque. From there, they would follow the National Old Trails Road to New York City. [“Wade to Start July 16 on Non-Stop Auto Trip,” The New York Times, June 18, 1925, page 6]

As planned, Wade and Wells left from Los Angeles on July 16. They arrived in New York City on July 23, as explained in the Times the following day:

A crowd of several thousand persons at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Automobile Association, 1773 Broadway, yesterday greeted Lieutenant Leigh Wade, round-the-world flier, and his companion, Linton Wells, at the finish of their non-stop automobile tour from Los Angeles to New York.

Escorted by a platoon of motorcycle police, the mud encrusted car, a Packard eight, rolled up to headquarters just off Columbus Circle at 1:55 o’clock, after 3,963 miles of continuous traveling, without once stopping for oil, gas or water or engine adjustment. The distance from Los Angeles to here was covered in 163 hours and 50 minutes.

During the entire trip Wade slept eighteen hours and Wells sixteen in the back of the car. Both wore a week’s growth of beard, and the blood was running from a deep sunburn on Wade’s left arm, caused by the hot Kansas sun.

The nonstop drive ran into several situations that nearly forced the pair to stop. The most talked about incident occurred in Arizona, before the pair reached the National Old Trails Road, near Tucson when they had to change a flat tire, as described in The Washington Post:

From Tucson, Ariz., near which city the puncture occurred comes the story of how the thing was done, possibly the first time it ever was attempted. The tire was changed in about 40 minutes with change crew running alongside the big Packard 8 for about 4 miles.

The car was on the pavement when the deflated tire was first detected. Wade was driving. Wells joined the crew from the pilot car and the process of discovering the intricacies of the Dolly pack strapped to the running board was started. This jack, equipped with 4 wheels, had been tested only for the front wheels before the start from Los Angeles. It was found that it would not raise the car quite high enough to clear the tire from the ground. Another mile — and a short piece of plank was fastened to the top of the jack.

By this time the tire had gone down so far that the height of the jack when released plus the thickness of the plank would not permit the jack to go under the axles. Then a big rock was placed under the offending wheel and Wade who had traded places at the wheel with Wells followed the plank-clapped jack as closely as possible to the rear axle. The Packard rolled over the road, Wade shoved the jack in place and as the rock was left behind the car hit a solid position on the jack. An accommodating Phoenix speed cop arrived with a gallon thermo jug of iced water to counteract a temperature of 116 degrees in the shade of a cactus and a working temperature of about 173 ½.

By means of a special individual rear-wheel braking device, the crippled wheel was partially locked and enough traction was thrown to the other rear wheel to propel the car. The hub bolts had been loosened during the difficulties of getting the Packard on the jack. The balance of the toughest tire change that has ever been accomplished consisted of lining up the holes in the disk wheel with those of the hub while the hub itself fitfully released itself from the brake and occasionally took a spasmodic revolution or two en route.

While on the National Old Trails Road, the pair encountered several problems that nearly ended the run:

Near Las Vegas, N. Mex., Lieut. Wade missed the main road, and while following a poorly defined wagon track and hurrying to catch his escort, he hit a high irrigation culvert. The car was thrown into the air, all four wheels leaving the ground, but it landed upright in the irrigation ditch, and, without a stop, Wade ran along in the ditch until he could pull out into a field.

Crossing Missouri presented the usual mud problem:

Crossing Missouri two cloud bursts were encountered, which made the gumbo roads impassable for normal driving. Several times the Packard slid into the ditch and churned its way through the mud and water without a stop. Men from the escort cars had to keep shoveling the mud away as it dammed up in front of the front axle, and by main strength had to hold the wheels in the ruts. Hours were spent with the car traveling only a mile an hour.

Nearing St. Louis gravel roads were encountered and at this point the tire chains which had been put on without a stop in the gumbo mud country threatened to break and lock the rear wheels. Wells took the wheel and drove as slowly as possible. Wade dove under the rear end of the car and hooking one elbow around the rear axle, permitted himself to be dragged on his back over the gravel, while with his free hand he cut the wires with which the chains had been fastened. His clothes were torn off and his back badly lacerated.

After the pair were off the National Old Trails Road heading for New York City, a police officer nearly halted the nonstop drive. The Times reported:

But it was not the Missouri cloudburst nor the sands of the desert that threatened to stop the wheels. It remained for a traffic officer in Irvington-on-Hudson, thirty miles from their destination, to almost upset the non-stop journey. As the transcontinental car with its escort of banner-draped machines and State troopers on motorcycles proceeded down Irvington’s Broadway, a traffic policeman, who had not learned of the unique trip, set the “stop” signal. Lieutenant Wade, who was at the wheel, kept right on moving.

He slowed down to explain to the traffic officer who walked beside the car. Finally, without stopping the machine, Wade gave over the wheel to Wells and hopped from the car to receive a summons for violating a traffic ordinance. Wells continued on to New York, Wade overtaking him later in another machine.

At Peekskill, New York, the pair were almost arrested when Wade drove on the wrong side of a traffic tower. “A policeman rode alongside, arguing with them until the purpose of the trip was explained by State police accompanying the machine.”

Finally in New York City, “the two men had their first square meals since leaving Los Angeles,” having subsisted on a fruit and liquid diet. From the Times:

Wade described the trip as a good vacation stunt, much harder than flying, even harder than the world-circling flight, requiring much more physical and mechanical endurance. The reverse, he said, had never been used on the entire trip. The Metropolitan Automobile Association and the affiliated clubs helped them greatly. In the cities through which they passed the clubs furnished them gas, oil and water while in motion and cleared the way through the populated districts . . . .

As the result of their experiences Wade and Wells stressed the need of a national code of automobile signals and the uniform marking of the motor roads from coast to coast.

Thanks to the oil rectifier in the Packard, “the trip was made without a change of oil . . . . At the end of the 3,965 miles the oil in the crank case showed less than two per cent dilution. Oil was added from time to time, but in the whole trip only 20 quarts were used.” The escort cars carried 5-gallon tins of gasoline that was poured into a 40-gallon auxiliary tank in the tonneau. In all, the trip required 323 gallons of gasoline, or about 13 miles per gallon.

When the trip was over, the car was restarted without any repairs, other than the changing of two spark plugs, and ran without a stop for 162 hours and 45 minutes before being shut off to be displayed in a Packard sales room in Boston. [“Non-Stop Tire Change Hit of Transcontinental Run,” The Washington Post, August 16, 1925, page AT2; “Non-Stop Auto Here From California,” The New York Times, July 24, 1925, page 6; “Nonstop Auto Trip, Coast to Coast, Ends,” The Washington Post, July 24, 1925, page 5]

Group Meetings of the Joint Board

The Joint Board’s report on its work described the group meetings as being of great interest to the States:

The interest of the States in the matter is clearly shown by the very large percentage of attendance. Of the eleven Western States eight sent personal representatives to group meetings; of the eleven Mississippi Valley States nine had personal representatives; of the six Lakes States all sent representatives; of the nine Southern States all sent representatives; of the five Middle Atlantic States two sent representatives; and of the six New England States all sent representatives. Every Board member was present at his respective group meeting, and in some cases States sent three or four representatives. States not represented in person generally furnished maps and correspondence indicating their choice of routes with the result that in the course of the group meetings all but two States have taken the opportunity to express themselves definitely regarding the routes selected.

The meetings were intended for the State highway departments, as had been the case with the group meetings on the Federal-aid systems following enactment of the Federal Highway Act of 1921. The Joint Board’s report summarized the meetings:

Trail associations raised no serious difficulties at any meeting, although at Kansas City, Chicago and Atlanta numerous representatives of these organizations appeared quite evidently expecting to be heard. In no case, however, were any outside representatives permitted to appear before the meetings, but in all cases it was necessary in courtesy to meet these trails representatives outside of the meeting and talk with them regarding the situation. At Kansas City the number of visitors was so large it was suggested that they make arrangements for their own meeting in a separate place where a brief statement might be made to them, explaining the work of the Board. In every case the trails representatives appeared to recognize the difficulties raised by the multiplicity of marked routes, and seemed satisfied that the Board was giving every practicable and fair consideration to the general trails situation throughout the country.

Despite general agreement on the purpose of the Joint Board, State highway officials displayed “no definite attitude” on some of the key issues:

For instance, the Northeastern States hold the attitude toward the system that the routes should be of a transcontinental character and that an interstate route that extended only through two or three States should not be included. It would have clarified the situation somewhat if the conflicting ideas of interstate vs. transcontinental had been given better definition and obviously, if the system as now laid out is to be diminished, a distinction of these ideas will have to be developed.

In the Western group the general attitude was that roads of immediate importance should be included and the understanding seems to prevail that additional routes would be added from time to time. At the Chicago meeting on the other hand the attitude appeared to be that the States of that group were prepared to lay out at this time a system of interstate connections that would comprise all likely routes for an indefinite period, and the other roads built in the future would be tributary to the system now planned. [Report of Joint Board on Interstate Highways, pages 25-26]

The group meetings began in San Francisco with the Western Group assembling on May 15, 1925, in the State Building. “The regular work of the meeting was carried on expeditiously and in entire harmony, and the selection of the major routes was done almost without any difference of opinion.” Agreement was reached on the major routes, with the only issues involving routes added after the interstate connections were agreed upon. “There appeared to be a very strong tendency to add such additional routes and I made it clear to the meeting that I believed such additions should be considered tentative and subject to the review of the full Board at the next meeting.”

(It is not clear who “I” was.)

The trail associations were in attendance:

No representatives of trails organizations or named routes asked to be heard at San Francisco and representatives of such organizations, whom I saw there, appeared to be very well satisfied that the work of the Board would be fairly done so far as the trails organizations are concerned. Representatives of the Automobile Association of California [the CSAA of northern California] and the Southern California Automobile Association were present, however, and after consultation with Mr. [Robert M.] Morton [California State Highway Engineer] and Mr. [Harvey M.] Toy [chairman, California Highway Commission] it appeared advisable to allow these gentlemen to present their views on the question of signs before the members of the group meeting. An opportunity was, therefore, given to both of these organizations to make a statement of their work which might be affected by the standardization of signs and markers on the interstate highways. There was no discussion whatever with these gentlemen and their statements were accepted as submitted. [Report of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways, pages 29-30]

Arizona and New Mexico were included in the Western Group meeting. Arizona’s State Engineer, W. C. LeFebvre, attended, while New Mexico’s State Highway Engineer, James A. French, attended as a member of the Joint Board. One of the issues to be resolved in designation of interstate highways was the connection between Arizona and New Mexico. The two States had five connections, including the National Old Trail Road’s connection from Gallup to Holbrook along the Santa Fe Trail and its connection via Springerville. LeFebvre wrote about the challenge of selecting its interstate connections:

[The] problem of selection of these arteries of travel was very difficult in certain places. One of the questions that came up, that in which Arizona was vitally concerned, was whether the National Old Trails connection from Holbrook to Gallup or the connection from Holbrook to Springerville should be selected as the Arterial Highway through Northern Arizona. New Mexico’s population and resources and consequently the development of their highways through their State had been along the Santa Fe [Holbrook-Gallup], while Arizona’s population and resources lay mostly along the Holdbrook-Springerville Highway. This problem was finally solved, after a great deal of discussion, at the Washington conference, by designating both highways as Arterial Highways.

He also discussed the California connection:

The next connection which I will take up is our California connection at Needles, California, on the Old Trails Highway. Recently California has decided that it would build a paved highway from the vicinity of Barstow, California, in a Northeasterly direction to the Nevada State line, proposing that Nevada extend its connection, which it will, to Las Vegas. The object of this connection is to cut off considerable distance for the tourist who is coming from Salt Lake City eastward over the Arrowhead Trail and wishes to go to Los Angeles or Southern California.

It is not the intention of California to do any amount of improvement work on the Old Trails road from Needles west to Barstow. California wishes Arizona to change its seven per cent system and swing northward and connect with the Arrowhead Trail at either Searchlight, Nevada, or some point to the north of Searchlight. This would simply mean that California would be abandoning one of the main arteries of travel East and West.

It is my opinion that the Bureau of Public Roads would support California and Nevada in this connection, which would work a considerable hardship on Arizona, for we have spent a considerable amount of money in the construction of the National Old Trails Highway.

Recently the Highway Department submitted to the Bureau of Public Roads a project for the construction of a road from Oatman west, approximately three miles. The Bureau of Public Roads refused to participate in the construction of this road and gave as its excuse that it desired to wait until it learned what the ultimate development of the Colorado River near Needles would be.

If, with the large amount of work that Arizona has done on this section of road, it is abandoned, and the Bureau of Public Roads decides to throw open this part of the seven per cent system for revision, then Arizona will most certainly take the stand that that part of her seven per cent system shall likewise be open to revision, because the revision proposed is of no benefit to Arizona, being of benefit only to California and Nevada. There will be a conference held between the three States interested and the Bureau of Public Roads shortly, to determine what shall be done with our connection to the west. [LeFebvre, W. C., “Does Arizona Want Tourist Traffic?” Arizona Highways, October 1925, pages 16-17, 23]

He was referring to the Joint Board’s August meeting. He was not a member of the Joint Board, but French and California’s Morton would attend.

Meanwhile, New Mexico had six highways designated for inclusion in the new system. As described in the New Mexico Highway Journal, the routes included a north-south route that was known in the State as “El Camino Real” from Raton, along the old Santa Fe Trail through Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and south through Las Cruses to El Paso, Texas. One of the main east-west routes crossed El Camino Real at Albuquerque, stretching from Clovis on the east to Gallup on the west, continuing on to Holbrook, Arizona. As a result, the entire National Old Trails Road in New Mexico was included, although divided among two routes. [“Conference Gives New Mexico Six United States Highways,” New Mexico Highway Journal, June 1925, page 9]

The Mississippi Valley Group met in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting was in the Baltimore Hotel, “and again there was practically complete harmony in the selection of the major routes.” The first choices of adjacent States “were not always continuous, but the first and second choices were generally sufficient to secure complete correspondence.” Based on the experience in San Francisco, Joint Board members tried to avoid the tendency of the States to add routes, “and was generally successful, but there was a marked tendency to add, as of major importance, more routes than should in all probability be finally included, and this is a matter which should have careful consideration by the full Board.”

The trail associations were represented:

The meeting at Kansas City appears to have attracted considerable attention among trail organizations and there were between 50 and 60 representatives of various trails in the city to attend the meeting. Mr. Piepmeier announced that a number had made inquiry of him and he had uniformly advised that it was useless for them to attend as the meeting would be executive in character. There was, however, considerable pressure from these organizations to be heard, some of the delegates had come from Oklahoma and Texas understanding that they would be heard, so the announcement was circulated that if all interested persons could arrange to get together in one place that a brief statement would be made to them regarding the work of the Board, the proposed selection of routes, and the uniform marking. Such an informal meeting was held in a room of the hotel other than parlor D where the group meeting occurred, and Mr. James and Mr. Avery, at different times, addressed the representatives of the trail organizations. The statements made seemed to satisfy these organizations and they very clearly agreed that the work proposed by the Board was entirely satisfactory to them and passed a motion to that effect.

On the whole, the trail organizations so far appear to be taking a very sensible and broad attitude toward the work of the Board. [The Report of Joint Board, pages 31-32]

Kelly, in her biography of Joint Board member Cyrus Avery of Oklahoma, elaborated on the meeting with the trail associations:

The board had not invited outsiders but by the time of the Kansas City regional meeting, word had spread. About fifty or sixty trails association people descended on the Baltimore Hotel, all concerned that a national highway system meant they were about to lose their identities and, in many cases, their incomes. Both, of course, were true. They made their stand at the Kansas City meeting.

As the Joint Board’s host state member, Piepmeier explained to the throng of trails people that the meeting was not open to the public. Nonetheless, the trails people demanded to be heard and refused to leave. Finally, given that they were, after all, highway supporters and that most of them were acquainted with one or more of the AASHO members, the board relented.

Cy and James met with the trails association people in another part of the hotel. Once everyone was settled, they explained the board’s plans. They answered questions. They also showed the trails representatives the routes selected so far and explained what the uniform markings would look like. By the time the informal meeting ended, the trails people seemed to be on board and voted to accept the work to date . . . .

It is interesting that, with Cy so involved in three trails organizations himself, this was the meeting where the trails groups demanded to be heard. On the other hand, so many of the trails rolled through the Mississippi Valley states that this meeting was an obvious one to attend. The question of how they all knew to converge on Kansas City on May 27, however, still remains open. [Kelly, page 141]

Whether Judge Lowe or another representative of the National Old Trails Road Association was among the 50 or 60 unexpected guests in his home city is unknown, but seems likely.

The Lakes Group met on June 3 in the Kimball Building, Chicago, and was conducted “in entire harmony.” The sentiment “inclined toward the selection of practically a complete system at this time rather than the selection of an abbreviated system to be augmented in the future from time to time.” They agreed that the system they selected “would be final for a long period of years.” The report of the meeting did not mention trail associations. [The Report of Joint Board, page 33]

Similar harmony prevailed on June 8 during the Southern Group meeting in Atlanta’s Glenn Building. “All connections delivered to this group were at once agreed upon by the States concerned and the work of putting through the main roads was done without any serious disagreement.” Two routes remained to be decided, while the States tended to add routes “which did not involve connection with adjacent groups, but which very substantially increased the mileage in several of the States in the Piedmont region.” After agreement was reached on the routes, several members anticipated that “a more or less substantial culling of the mileage in this region” would likely be needed. [The Report of Joint Board, page 34]

Only two States, New Jersey and Ohio, participated in the North Atlantic States Group meeting in the Engineering Societies Building in New York City on June 15. Correspondence from Delaware “indicated their willingness to accept decisions of the Board.” Chairman John N. Mackall of the Maryland State Roads Commission indicated “that the principal roads through Maryland were so obvious that he thought it would be unnecessary for him to be present.” Pennsylvania had not sent word.

Superintendent Frederick S. Greene of New York, a Member of the Joint Board, but representing one of the North Atlantic States, thought the field map brought to this group meeting had too many roads. He “was especially desirous of reducing the mileage and the layout in New York was made accordingly”:

Mr. Greene said he thought he would on his own initiative send a copy of his State map to the other States in order that they could more clearly get his idea of a desirable density of transcontinental routes. He felt that the whole system should be very carefully gone over by the Joint Board with a view to eliminating a large number of alternates, short cuts and cross roads, which could not fairly be considered as of transcontinental significance, or even of major interstate importance.

The summary of the group meeting concluded:

Except for the general difference of attitude there was no lack of harmony at this meeting. All connections delivered to the group were met and carried to the New England line. [The Report of Joint Board, page 35]

The final meeting, of the New England Group, took place on June 18 in the State House, Boston. “All interstate routes delivered to the New England group were continued without question and entire harmony existed with the group in designating through routes.” Maine’s Paul D. Sargent, “suggested extensions of the present Federal Aid Highway System in his State to make Canadian connections and these are shown on the working map.” They agreed on another matter:

There was a general feeling that more routes have been introduced in the country as a whole than should be adopted and in order to make the layout in New England of about the same density as that existing elsewhere in the East, additional roads were inserted within the group, which could be eliminated if necessary on a further consideration of the whole system. [The Report of Joint Board, page 36]

The Joint Board’s August Meeting

On August 3, members of the Joint Board met in BPR headquarters for the start of their second full meeting. Avery, who had a commitment to preside over the Albert Pike Highway Association meeting in Colorado Springs on July 29 and 30, asked James to change the date of the meeting. James replied that the date of the meeting had been set during the Joint Board’s initial 2-day meeting in April and could not be changed. After the Albert Pike Highway Association ended, Avery rushed to Washington, but missed the morning session. [Kelly, page 148]

The tentative designations resulting from the group meetings included about 81,000 miles of road.

Acting Chairman E. W. James opened the meeting by requesting a verbal statement from each member on “the general adequacy of the interstate routes selected at the various group meetings . . . and shown on the map presented for the action of the Board.” He also asked the members to comment on “whether the number of these routes should be increased or decreased.”

The comments covered a range of issues, including the topics raised and the relationship of the named trail associations to the designation of routes. The following comments are either from representatives of States along the National Old Trails Road or of related interest.

California’s Morton said:

We are satisfied with the mileage for California. I am at a loss to know just exactly the purpose of picking out these routes. California selected their routes on account of interstate importance. It seems to me that some of these other States have selected routes not of interstate importance.

Harry Neal attended the meeting for Ohio in place of Mr. Boulay:

I have come to represent Mr. Boulay and to voice his sentiments. I think he is satisfied with the routes as outlined for Ohio and would not care to have them reduced, except perhaps some minor changes.

Superintendent of Maintenance A. R. Hinkle from the Indiana State Highway Commission, responded:

I advocate a fairly large number of routes. Too few routes will concentrate traffic and bring about a condition contrary to what we are working for. The Mississippi Valley will want to reduce some, but on the whole I would not advocate reducing the mileage to any great extent.

Frank Sheet, Illinois’ Chief Highway Engineer, commented:

I believe that in our enthusiasm about this matter we have lost sight of the main issue. We have designated too many roads on this map. I believe that the multiplicity of marking which will result if this plan is carried out as laid out, will be confusing and that it will defeat the object of the marking. I would like to have some State routes left to mark. We think we are going pretty strong with what we propose for Illinois. I think we have need for retrenchment. By reducing the mileage we will add to the value of our nationally marked system, to the importance of it in the minds of the people and a very wholesome condition will result. I believe the Western States’ system is all right. I believe the Middle West went wild on the subject.

West Virginia State Roads Commission’s C. P. Fortney said:

The layout of West Virginia suits the situation very nicely. I do not believe we want to reduce it. However, if the Board wishes we can reduce it.

One of the longstanding questions was whether the Joint Board was designating transcontinental highways or interstate highways. Commissioner of Public Works William F. Williams of Massachusetts, who endorsed Sheets’s statement, commented on the confusion:

I think we have been confused in our consideration of transcontinental routes with our long interstate routes. On the interstate route scheme we can have as many as we want, but it seems to be the transcontinental routes want to be essentially direct routes for the benefit of the few, the really through tourists who will use them. Massachusetts has but few which would fit in the transcontinental system. Furthermore we must not lose sight of the fact that no matter how many intervening routes we have, we will be obliged to come down to the few of the Pacific and Atlantic Seaboard. I believe the real purpose of this conference will be best met by confining ourselves for the transcontinental system to the few straight through routes east and west and north and south, leaving to the States the marking and designating of those routes which are strictly interstate. Massachusetts has submitted the number of routes it thinks ample. I would be willing to withdraw a portion of these routes to carry out the theory of simplicity and directness.

William G. Sloan, New Jersey’s State Highway Engineer, agreed with Sheets and Williams:

It seems to me that the routes as they cross the Middle Western States should be confined to the few of the Atlantic and Pacific Seaboard. The tremendous Middle West mileage bears no relation to the transcontinental system. I am in favor of reducing the mileage very considerably.

Chairman F. O. Hotchkiss of the Wisconsin State Highway Commission identified two things to consider. “We have our knowledge of traffic and the conditions in our various States, and we also have the political problem.” He could see that “it might be dangerous for some of us to go home with serious eliminations and serious cuts in that map.” The pressure to restore them would be strong. “Every locality that desires to participate in the transcontinental and interstate tourist business is going to demand in no uncertain language that the Federal marked system go through that locality.” The map of routes in the Middle West could be reduced and still meet what I believe are the two essential features in laying out this system.”

He did not agree with an idea that South Carolina’s Moorefield had suggested (“We are perfectly willing to adopt the skeleton layout as proposed, but we are more concerned with an easy procedure in making additions than in making reductions at the present time.” Hotchkiss explained;

I think if we do not meet political demands we will make a serious mistake. We will have general dissatisfaction with the results of the work of this board. If we leave the map open, tremendous pressure will be exerted constantly to add to it.

As for the size of the network proposed for Middle Western States, “I believe we can take off some of the routes resulting from the district conferences, but I do not believe we can take off too many.”

New Mexico’s French said:

I believe there is too much mileage in the middle west and in the eastern States. There might be a little lacking in the far western States which may not amount to much in the next few years but possibly will in the next 50 years. I would approve the system with the exception of the extreme amount of mileage in the middle west and eastern States.

B. H. Piermeier of Missouri was next:

I believe the whole purpose of this interstate marking is brought about on account of trail organizations. As I see it the different trail organizations have been marking transcontinental highways across the States and leading the people in all directions that they should not go. We must have the interstate routes marked intelligently, as the trail organizations will mark them if we do not.

The system as laid our practically represents the routes of travel in Missouri and in adjoining States. There are a few which can be taken off, but no large percentage of them.

We cannot concentrate on a small number of roads. That will show up when we number these routes. Any route that is following out the line of traffic through several States has got to remain in this system. Our preliminary rate is not far wrong.

After all the members had spoken, Acting Chairman James “stated that he believed the designation of these routes was going to run hand in hand with any reduction, revision or alteration in the map.” He asked for suggestions on how to proceed.

They had two maps to review:

1. Map No. 1 showing scheme for numbering of through routes and suggestion for reduction of mileage.
2. Map No. 2 showing routes tentatively adopted by representatives of the various States present at the regional meetings.

Chairman Henry G. Shirley of the Virginia State Highway Commission moved to adopt Map No. 1 “with the understanding that no more than 20 per cent of the mileage as shown on the map be added in any State.” His motion was seconded, but Hotchkiss did not agree. He thought the members should break up into groups, as in the regional meetings, to work out differences.

Piepmeier commented:

I would like to suggest that we work out a plan from map No. 2 instead of adopting map No. 1. It seems to be the opinion that somewhere between these two maps we will agree. We should be able to work by process of elimination a system of transcontinental highways from this system as laid out here. I would like to see the points north and south and east and west connected by colored strings tacked on the various routes across the map. We can then eliminate the routes that are not a part of this system.

Sheets moved:

I move that it be the sense of this Board that as the first step in the process of considering the system of interstate highways resulting from the action taken at the group meetings, the Bureau of Public Roads call group meetings of this Board from the States here represented, in the same manner as was done when the original system was laid out, and the revisions as made in this series of group meetings of this Board be then submitted back to this Board for consideration, after which we take such steps as wisdom will show.

His motion was seconded by Hinkle and carried. After a few additional comments, the Joint Board divided into groups per the motion.

In the afternoon, with Avery finally in attendance, the groups reported on their decisions, which were to be mapped in time for the August 4 meeting. They then discussed issues involving the signs for marking the routes and the guide and warning signs (STOP, CURVE, HILL 2nd GEAR, 20 MILES SPEED LIMIT, etc.).

They discussed a suggestion from Hotchkiss about sending the current map, with the revisions from the morning groups, to the States to give them a chance to be heard. Perhaps, Piepmeier suggested, BPR could set up a small group to consider any changes from the States before submitting the plan to the Secretary.

Hotchkiss: I move that it be the sense of this Board that the map as it now stands amended, as to the extent and general location of a system of U.S. routes to be marked, be approved by this Board; and that this map be sent out to the various States for their confirmation.

His motion was seconded and carried.

On numbering, C. M. Babcock, Commissioner of Highways in Minnesota suggested:

I would like to offer a motion that the Chairman be authorized to appoint a committee of five, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Board to be Chairman of the Committee, for the purpose of presenting for the approval of a board, a scheme for numbering this system of interstate routes.

After brief discussion of possible numbering plans, the Joint Board seconded Babcock’s motion and approved it. Acting Chairman James was to establish a Committee of Five, with himself as chairman, to present a system to the members on August 4 for numbering this system of interstate highways. The Committee of Five consisted of:

Cyrus S. Avery, Oklahoma
Roy A. Klein, Oregon
Charles H. Moorefield, South Carolina
B. H. Piepmeier, Missouri
Frank T. Sheets, Illinois

[Joint Board on Interstate Highways, Second Full Meeting, National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

The Committee of Five worked all night on the numbering plan. Kelly pointed out:

The numbering committee went to work on what was considered pretty much a pro forma project. The big job, the one fraught with emotion, had been the actual selection of the highways themselves. How much difficulty could there be in doling out numbers? Not much, initially. [Kelly, page 151]

The Joint Board’s Final Meeting

The Joint Board returned on August 4 to complete its work on designations, numbering, and signs.

Overnight, the members had reduced the proposed U.S. numbered highways to approximately 50,100 miles. As amended, the map was approved by the Joint Board, which directed that it be sent to the States for their confirmation. Piepmeier suggested that BPR, with a committee of one or two, should be the final review board for suggestions by the States for modifying the map.

However, James was concerned that "if there were any substantial changes it could be a very serious situation for a committee of 3." He recommended that the maps be sent to the States through the regional groups formed within the Joint Board. The members, who "understand that we want this map to stand as nearly untouched as possible," could then work with the States "and in that way we will have the confirmation by the States constantly under the fingers of the 4 or more members in each group." The Joint Board adopted his idea.

The members also considered what to do with their decisions and conclusions. Rogers suggested that the Joint Board send a report to the States to consider at AASHO's annual meeting, to be held that November in Detroit. Williams pointed out that the former Secretary of Agriculture had created the Joint Board, so the current Secretary should be allowed to submit the report to the States with any suggestions he may choose to make. This plan was adopted. The Joint Board also directed James to appoint a Committee of Three to draft the report, with James as chairman of the committee.

Concluding the morning session, the Joint Board agreed to delay publicizing the selected routes until the Secretary's approval was obtained.

As the afternoon session began, James announced the members of the committee that would draft the Joint Board's report, namely Hotchkiss, Moorefield, and Williams. James would be the primary author and likely the “I” mentioned earlier. James also listed the group chairmen who would transmit the map to the States in their region.

The members discussed some routes, including:

Acting Chairman: With reference to the old and new Santa Fe routes in Kansas.

W. C. Markham, AASHO: The State wants the Old Trail. Why not put an alternate number on the Old Trail?

Cyrus Avery: The Highway Department of Kansas wants the Old Trail and the Secretary of Agriculture wants the other route.

Secretary of Agriculture William M. Jardine, who had succeeded Secretary Gore on March 5, was from Kansas. He had served as director of the State’s Agricultural Experiment Station, and was the dean of agriculture at Kansas State College when President Coolidge nominated him to be Secretary. As the eventual judge of the Joint Board’s work, his view on this detail was important.

Hotchkiss, Wisconsin: I am opposed to alternate routes. I think this Board should go on record as favoring the route that will serve the greatest number of people; if possible leave the matter of the Santa Fe Trail open so that the Kansas highway department can present, if they desire, reasons why we should change it.

Sheets, Illinois: I move that it be the sense of this Board that the map with respect to the Old and New Santa Fe Trails in Kansas stand as it is now prepared, with the statement formally appended to the motion, that we leave the matter open for the State highway department to present further argument for change if they wish to do so, or of the need of an additional route in that same locality.

Rogers, Michigan: I believe we should accept the map as it is and make no changes in Kansas until it goes to the Secretary.

Sheets, Illinois: I withdraw my motion.

The Committee of Five, presented its report on numbering the selected routes. The minutes state:

Scheme worked out on the map showed 8 main east and west routes and 10 north and south routes. Numbers were then added on next most important routes. There are 32 numbered routes and a large part of the system has been covered.

When the members of the Joint Board had finished reviewing the partially numbered map, James asked if they were satisfied. Klein, a member of the Committee of Five, said he was not. He preferred a system of numbering by zones. Morton agreed. The Joint Board, however, approved a motion by Babcock to return the map to the Committee of Five to complete the marking along the lines shown on the map, to be considered at some later date. Klein was still not satisfied. He wished to be recorded as voting against this action.

In response to Klein's disagreement, Morton offered a motion calling on the Committee of Five to develop a numbering plan based on a zone system. However, Chief MacDonald interrupted. "There does not seem to be much enthusiasm over either one." He suggested leaving it to the committee to bring in a numbering system that seems to meet both ideas. Based on this suggestion, the Joint Board approved Hotchkiss' motion to refer the matter of selecting a scheme for numbering the U.S. system to the numbering committee "without instructions."

In final actions, the Joint Board approved Rogers' motion that the shield measure 16 inches from tip to tip and a motion by Chief MacDonald disapproving the use of the same number on alternate routes, but leaving the issue to the discretion of the Committee of Five "if no other method seems to meet the exigencies of the situation."

With that last minute flurry, the Joint Board's second and final meeting came to an end.

The Old vs. New Santa Fe Trail

The decision to appoint group chairmen to clear the tentative U.S. numbered highway map with the State highway agencies did not, as James had expected, result in holding the line on expansion. James later acknowledged that "the public seemed to have been aroused to the possibilities." As a result, "the work of the group chairmen in some sections was not of an enviable sort."

One issue of immediate concern was the dispute between the Old Santa Fe Trail and the New Santa Fe Trail. The Herington Sun in Kansas carried an article on August 13 about the issue:

So much emphasis has been put upon the location of Federal Highways according to the best interests of the people served, the transcontinental highways to be the shortest and most feasable [sic] route between two points agreed upon by the state interested and the adjoining states that most everyone had come to believe that there really were no politics in the Bureau of Roads.

Last week we quoted from a letter signed by E. W. Jones [sic], secretary of the Joint Board, that, “The action of the group meeting at Kansas City will stand as the expression of the states involved, unless the State Highway departments officially request changes, and such changes would have to be acceptable not only to the immediate state involved, but also to the adjoining states in the route.”

No doubt the secretary was quoting a board rule laid down for its guidance in such matters and believed that the joint board would stand by its own rules. But he didn’t know of how and when a political pull might overset things.

When influential Kansans with letters and telegrams from certain other influential Kansans appeared at Washington concerning the designation of the New Santa Fe trail as a primary Federal Highway, the fact that the Old Santa Fe trail was the choice of the Kansas Highway commission, and was also approved by the group meeting over the claims of the New Santa Fe trail was entirely disregarded, and the New Santa Fe trail substituted.

Its forming a part of the National Old Trails from Baltimore to Los Angeles as well as its historical significance and importance, as well as the facts that made it the best trail when located a hundred years ago make it the best today were also disregarded.

When the advocates of the New Trail appeared before the State Highway commission and the regional group meeting at Kansas City, their claims were heard and the matter determined in favor of the Old Santa Fe trail by men fully informed concerning all matters at issue.

To save its face, the Bureau of Public Roads proposes to refer the matter back to the several state commissions interested and the regional group meeting for final determination. But what a difference! The matter was considered and decided on its merits against the New Trail before; now it comes before them with, what the friends of the New Trail will hold to be, the approval of the Department of Agriculture and the local people will be expected to bow their necks to the department.

The whole matter, of right, should come before the state Highway commission only. The New Santa Fe trail is a highway wholly within the state of Kansas, that hooks onto the Old Trail at Edgerton, but claims to start from Kansas City. It gets back into the Old Trail at Kinsley.

No objection could be justly made against its designation, as a branch of the Old Trail and so marking it. But every principle of justice and fairdealing [sic], calls for the department sustaining, as its rules called for, the State Highway departments and group meetings.

If it must need be passed on again, let it be on its merits, as it was determined before, and most emphatically not with any order, suggestion or action by the authorities at Washington giving it a predudiced [sic] or unfair standing.

As it now stands those familiar with the history of the location of the Federal Highways in Kansas seem to be justified in questioning the fair dealing of the Department at Washington, assuming the news stories are true and report the matter fully.

W. E. Blackburn, the Sun’s editor, sent a copy of the article to Secretary Jardine on August 16 with a letter summarizing the issue:

Just why the Board felt better able to determine this matter than those on the ground as [sic] the Kansas Highway commission and the regional meeting, is not clear.

The matter that concerns us, is the reference of the matter back by Washington, with the added weight in favor of the other roads of the Washingtonian approval, and that based, we feel, on political pull, plus a good deal of plausibility.

In the article, he had tried to “present the matter as it appears to the people along the line of the Old Trail”:

If I am wrong in any material matter, I’d appreciate it if you or the Joint Board would correct same.

Secretary Jardine replied on August 29 with a letter written by James:

I have your letter of August 16, and note what you say regarding the action of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways. I was sorry to see the article published in the “Sun”, because I understand that the Joint Board did, in fact, follow as nearly as it could be ascertained the wishes of the State Highway Department of Kansas. There appears to have been some inconsistency in the communications from that Department. The Board, however, followed what it believed to be the last word as properly representing the final choice of that Department. This was in the form of a map brought to the Board meeting by one of the members, and I understand that this map was followed practically without change.

I think that the Board has acted wisely in referring its selections back to the States for confirmation as this will make it possible to correct within the State those features which, while considered important to the State, will not seriously affect interstate connections. [National Archives at College Park, Maryland]