people at some of the national meetings that that was apparently a problem that we all had in common. It might well relate to a requested roadbuilding program, perhaps, but it never did come to the point, of course, of being told that here is project X, “You will have this right-of-way in 30 days, period.” We were never confronted with that situation. As a matter of expediting the acquisition as much as possible we were never confronted with that. Mr. WRIGHT. Of course, the nature of the Federal program itself, when instituted in 1956, created some such impact, I am certain. But there are States where an orderly transitional development has been able to be developed. They can plan sufficiently in advance by a knowledge of precise route that the road is to take in order to permit their acquiring sufficiently in advance this right-of-way, in an orderly and regular fashion. Does it not occur to you that it would have been a great deal more orderly, a great deal less harried, and probably less expensive if it had been possible for you to have acquired it in advance and planned it as an orderly progression ? Mr. HORAN. Mr. Wright, there is nothing that would please me more, and I am sure my successor, Mr. Bias, than being given perhaps a year to acquire right-of-way. Let me point out an example of that. There is a project in Charleston known as the South Side Boulevard in which we were given almost a year in advance to acquire right-ofway. We were thoroughly delighted, but we could acquire only through negotiation. Eminent domain will not lie if there is no immediate need for the property. So we could acquire all the parcels that we could acquire through negotiation. Due to the plans not having been fully approved or portions thereof, there were a number of parcels that we could not deal with. Up until a few months ago the present legal and right-of-way division was having the same difficulty of acquiring right-of-way of lastat the last possible moment. If I make myself clear: Even though there was leadtime there were a number of parcels that were not acquired until or were acquired under the same identical pressure that we felt on the normal project. So that this thought of having the year's time to acquire right-ofway turned out to be somewhat less. Mr. WRIGHT. I see. Thank you very much. Are there other questions from the members ? Mr. CRAMER. I have just a couple of brief questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Do I understand, and I think it is rather obvious, that when the new administration when in, they went in at the beginning of the implementation of the Interstate Defense Highway Act Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Of 1956 ? So you had the job of tooling up for that additional Federal matching money. Right? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir; with seven employees in the Charleston office. Mr. CRAMER. There were seven? Mr. HORAN. Seven when I took over, and I kept, as I recall, all of them, and Mr. CRAMER. They were all Democrats, I suppose, or most of them? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir; and I might further point out, in the districts there were, at the time it first came to my attention—the importance of district right-of-way agents—there were four that had been with the road commission a number of years. I assumed they were Democrats. Of those four, one, by the way, was fired for cause, not for incompetency. We kept getting stories that didn't help us any. Of the remaining three, I went to Mr. Graney and said that these men must be kept. He said, “They will be kept,” and they were kept. Mr. CRAMER. Because of their qualifications. Is that right? Mr. HORAN. Because of their qualifications. And, incidentally, Mr. Cramer, of those that I later hired in the right-of-way office in Charleston, I think I probably—I don't mean this as any reflection on the Republican Party—I think I found more qualified Democrats, and hired them, than I did Republicans. I am speaking now of draftsmen, engineering assistants, and so on. What I am trying to say, sir, is: In our office and in the districts, after Mr. Graney was made aware of this, politics were not a requirement. Mr. CRAMER. Well, now, do I understand you to say that you hired . these people based upon the primary consideration of qualifications? Mr. HÔRAN. Absolutely. Mr. CRAMER. You say that there were seven that you retained that were there before. Now, how many more were brought in? How did you beef up this operation to take care of the new program? What was done? Was Thompson's—let me give you an example—was Thompson's job in existence before the new administration came in? Mr. HORAN. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Well, you had no chief appraiser ? Mr. HORAN. There was no chief appraiser. Mr. CRAMER. Before? Mr. HORAN. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Before the new administration came in, who appointed a chief appraiser and the two assistants they later gave him? They were not in existence prior to your appointment? Mr. HORAN. That is right. Mr. HORAN. Sir, when I first went in, as I remember, an appraisal form consisted of possibly one page. We designed the present—I did not, personally—but the office designed the new appraisal form which gave a great deal more data and we felt it was in conformity with the Bureau of Public Roads' requirements. Mr. CRAMER. Was it cleared by the Bureau as a form for right-ofway acquisition? Do you know? Mr. HORAN. I will put it this way: It was not objected to. Mr. CRAMER (continuing). By requiring more information on appraisals ? a Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. What portion of the previous employees were kept by the new administration in your department? You have knowledge of it? Mr. HORAN. This will just take a moment. Of the persons in my office, when I went in, Mr. J. A. Taylor, an attorney, had been there for a number of years; highly competent, and we kept him. Mr. J. N. Wallace, utilities engineer, highly competent. I kept him. Mr. H. L. Lamb, an office supervisor and auditor; I kept him." Mr. Lester Mess, who was in district 6 normally, I believe under our office, I kept him. Mr. Watson Starcher, a full-time attorney who was stationed in Lewisburg, I kept him. Mr. CRAMER. It would have been hard to get new attorneys, wouldn't it, or would it? Mr. HORAN. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cramer, it was rather difficult to get an experienced attorney. Mr. Starcher was well experienced. Mr. CRAMER. With the salaries so low, it was hard to Mr. HORAN. Yes. We could pay a district right-of-way agent, when I went in, $405 a month. Mr. Graney was later successful in getting that raised to $550. Mr. HORAN. Yes. Mr. Graney was able, of course, with the approval of the board of public works, to increase salaries of right-ofway personnel and other personnel of the road commission to be sure, not much, but enough that we hoped to be able to attract more qualified and more competent personnel. Mr. CRAMER. So, in effect, there were efforts made to get better people and more people to do the job you knew you had to do under the new program? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. That does not mean that you did it adequately, but some improvements were made? Mr. HORAN. A great deal of improvements. Mr. CRAMER. Perhaps that partially accounts for the statement of Senator Revercomb that appears on the record of the highway hearings of 1958 in which he said, and I quote-on the question of West Virginia's progress, and the fact that there had not been comparably good progress: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I point out that there is a new administration of the government in the State of West Virginia which is less than a year old. A new highway department has been organized and is moving forward in its work and accomplishments with wonderful results. They have done 30 percent more roadway in surfacing and looking at the new contracts in the State than in the previous year. The legislature is meeting today in what is known as its budget session. One of the calls expressly made, as required by law, by the Governor in convening this budget session is for the roads. I believe firmly-I am assured—that there will be no question about West Virginia moving forward on its own program directly. It is underway right now. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Cramer, may I inquire for the record when was this? Mr. CRAMER. This particular quote was made on Wednesday, January 8, 1958, U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Public Roads, Washington, D.C. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. CRAMER. Now, Mr. Tallamy testified on the same page with regard to West Virginia: West Virginia, I have talked with the people there; I have even talked with the highway commissioner and the Governor of West Virginia in connection with that problem, and they are encouraging their legislature to provide more money, a better highway department with increased salaries for the engineers in the highway department, which has been a problem in West Virginia. Now, are you familiar with those circumstances or are those statements correct in your opinion? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Did you have trouble getting qualified appraisers for appointment, people that you considered qualified appraisers ? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir; a great deal of trouble. Mr. CRAMER. Now, it has been suggested by the chairman that a bill was passed in 1959, but I have read a couple of newspaper articles concerning it, and I understand by them that it was 1957. Do you say that it was 1957 that a civil service statute or act was passed and on the Governor's desk and he vetoed it? Are you familiar with what would have been required to override that veto? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir; a simple majority vote of the West Virginia legislators. Mr. CRAMER. The same that required the passage in the first place? Mr. HORAN. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. So if it was a good bill and the Governor's veto was not justified, the legislators merely had to consider the veto message and pass it by a simple majority. Is that not right? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Horan, just one other question: You state that you retained three of the division right-of-way agents because they were competent and highly qualified people? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Meanwhile you employed others, and I am sure you had some confidence in their competency or, at least, they developed some competency, I am sure, while they were on the job. I was just wondering why it was that you did not feel that one of these 10 men would be able to take over the functions being performed by Mr. Thompson at the time you felt that he probably should be replaced but said you could not find anybody to take iť? Mr. HORAN. To have taken a man out of a district that-first of all, as I said, I was not aware until rather late that Mr. Thompson was not thoroughly reviewing the appraisals. To have taken one of the district right-of-way agents, let's say, for example, Mr. Booth out of district 2, one of our busiest districts, would have meant that all business was dropped there. He was too valuable as a district right-of-way agent to move him into the function as chief appraiser. Mr. WRIGHT. I see. Well, of course, that was a decision that had to be made at the time by someone who knew more about the specific qualifications than I could certainly ever presume to know. It was that you just felt that you did not have anybody at that level that you could spare or could replace. Is that correct? Mr. HORAN. That is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. I see. Unless there are other questions, Mr. Horan, the committee wants to thank you for your cooperation and having been here and shared with us at some length your suggestions and your information. There is a rollcall vote in progress in the House Chamber, a yeaand-nay vote on the adoption of a welfare conference report. So at this time the committee will recess until 2 o'clock this after whom you noon. (Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was in recess, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION (Present: Representatives Blatnik, Clark, Cramer, Fallon, Gray, Johnson, Robison, Schwengel, and Wright.) Mr. WRIGHT. The subcommittee will be in order. Our first witness for this afternoon is Patrick C. Graney. If Mr. Graney is present, will you please come forward ? Mr. Graney, if you will pause there to be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. GRANEY. I do. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Would you take the chair at the witness table, please? TESTIMONY OF PATRICK C. GRANEY, MOUNT HOPE, W. VA.; AC COMPANIED BY CHARLES C. MAHAN, FAYETTEVILLE, W. VA. Mr. GRANEY. Yes, sir. And I have asked my attorney to sit with me. Mr. WRIGHT. First, for the benefit of the record, would you identify yourself, with your full name and address, and then we can identify Mr. Mahan, your attorney, similarly. Mr. GRANEY. My name is Patrick C. Graney and I live at Mount Hope, W. Va. Mr. WRIGHT. And your attorney is- Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Graney, you were formerly the commissioner for the West Virginia State Road Commission. Is that correct? |