Mr. OLIVER. The feeder carriers, what I call feeder carriers, the trunk-line carriers principally, have always prior to Government control, figuratively speaking, built a wall around these short lines, so that while they could get into the short-line territory, they would not let them out and would not let them into all of the possibilities of earning revenue by increasing their tonnage.

As an illustration of that and a reason for the proviso suggested, you will note in that map a heavy line runs over from Fort Smith to a town called Wellston, the mileage of which is 186 miles. Now, directly southwest from there is Lawton. From Fort Smith there are through rates to Lawton, and the only way the through rates apply is by hauling the tonnage directly north from Fort Smith up to Monett.

The CHAIRMAN. Up through the northeast corner?

Mr. OLIVER. Up to the northeastern corner, over the Frisco Railway direct and down over the Frisco Railway direct through Wellston into Lawton.

The total mileage over that route is 484 miles, whereas by using the Fort Smith & Western, a short-line property in connection with the Frisco, there would be a total mileage of 313 miles, or a mileage less than the current mileage used of 171 miles, and yet you would be surprised, gentlemen, to know that the rate over the Fort Smith & Western to Wellston, care of the Frisco, is considerably higher than the Frisco rate for that excess difference, because the Frisco has consistently refused to allow us to participate in that through rate.

You can see the possibilities that if we were allowed to participate in those rates, we would be able, not individually to serve ourselves and to increase our own traffic, but we would be able to go out into the country and increase the efficiency and service to the public, because by handling that tonnage we could give better efficiency in connection with the Frisco than the Frisco can give it over its own rails direct. Therefore the present law, when it says "that the commission can not require of the carrier without its consent to embrace in such routings substantially less than the entire length of its railroad," is allowing something to that carrier of which it has always taken advantage, and it will always produce that part of the law when we try to get in through rates, as outlined in this blue print attached.

The CHAIRMAN. They get the advantage by prorating on the longer basis?

Mr. OLIVER. They do not prorate, Mr. Chairman. They retain the entire 100 per cent revenue to their own rails and refuse to prorate.

The CHAIRMAN. I observe from this map that the Frisco practically pockets your line on three sides.

Mr. OLIVER. It does.

The CHAIRMAN. And besides has two lines crossing your territory? Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So you are in pretty hard straits?

Mr. OLIVER. Noticing that situation there, as you do, the Frisco gets into all of our territory, but refuses to let us into theirs.

Now, getting back to Mr. Chambers's letter, if the route suggested by Mr. Chambers, which he did suggest in that letter, was reasonable during Government control, why should they refuse to establish those

routings and make them legal and lawful? They attempted and did take away from the Fort Smith & Western traffic over what they called circuitous routings, although those were lawful routings, and they attempted to give us traffic over other routings, but refused to establish them as legal and lawful.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you want to amend the provision of existing law with reference to the distance traveled, permitting the connecting carrier to use his line?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. In order to get the shorter mileage?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where a more direct route would be available? Mr. COOPER. I do not think the chairman heard your amendment. The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. COOPER. Having seen this map, I think it would be clearer to this committee if you should read it once more. I should like to hear it now, after having seen the map.

Mr. OLIVER. You are familiar with the present law as regards embracing the mileage, etc., and it is proposed to add a proviso to that paragraph, reading as follows:

And provided further, That upon reasonable request therefor as outlined and provided in section 13, the commission shall require any carrier or carriers maintaining through, single, or joint-line routes, classifications, rates, fares, or charges, between localities served by other carriers not included in said joint-line routes, classifications, rates, fares, or charges, to open up new joint routes and maintain joint classifications, rates fares, or charges the same as maintained by the use of existing single or joint-line routes, classifications, joint rates, fares, or charges with such additional carriers, when by doing so the joint distance shall be no greater or less than the single joint-line distance currently used in the application of the existing single or joint-line routes.

In other words, it is thought to add a new route to an existing condition, not to cancel any route as regards existing conditions, but to add a new route when by doing so you are not increasing the mileage. You might be increasing the number of lines, but you would not be increasing the total mileage by adding those additional routes, the result being that you will help to take care of many of these short lines, and enable them to go out and secure additional traffic, and at the same time you will be giving to the public competitive service where it is now local, in consequence of which you will be giving them increased efficiency in the handling of that service.

The thought of that amendment does not for one moment take away from the Frisco its privileges, or from any line, for that matter, its privilege to handle that traffic, or going out and getting it at Fort Smith and handling it around that way, but it does allow the Fort Smith & Western to also go out and try to get that busi

ness.

Now, the public soon gets acquainted with the conditions. If the Fort Smith & Western goes out and gets that business and handles it, and the Frisco goes out and gets that business-some of it-and handles it, and we give the best results, we are going to handle more than the Frisco; if the Frisco gives the best results, they are going to handle more than we; so you are placing those two roads on a parity, one with the other, allowing their own initiative work, exercised in the performance of the service of their own railroads, to let

the public judge which is the best service and which is the most efficient route in the handling of that service. But just so long as we are denied the privilege of those things, the Frisco is able to hold 100 per cent of that business and to give any class of service that it sees fit to the people using it.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we could not make a statute, based merely on one instance. Is this a condition that is quite prevalent? Mr. OLIVER. So prevalent that I have one worse in front of me. The CHAIRMAN. Two would not make a cause of complaint? Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I could produce, if I had to, for our road alone, 40 or 50 of such illustrations. In order to more thoroughly show you that this is not an isolated case, that it is something which is common with every railroad in the country, and that there are a great many of these routings, the committee in St. Louis asked me to go back home and see if I could not submit dockets which would let us into natural routings where we were not in to-day.

I went home and I submitted 25, 30, or 35 of those dockets. They were submitted ranging anywhere from 2 to 8 months ago, and up to this date not one of those dockets has been approved, and there have been five or six of them negatived, but as far as possible, the committee in St. Louis will not negative those dockets, because that gives me the privilege of going higher up, but they will sidetrack them and refuse to consider them. That is about the truth in regard to those dockets. The consequence is, those natural routings that Mr. Chambers wanted me to give him, the committee in St. Louis refused to consider.

They even went so far, when some of the shippers made application to us to get these routings, as to bring pressure to bear upon those shippers to have the dockets cancelled, and those shippers, through fear of what the trunk line carriers would do, did write letters later on suggesting that we cancel the dockets.

The CHAIRMAN. The majority of that traffic committee in St. Louis is composed of railroad representatives?

Mr. OLIVER. It is. When that committee was first started it was composed of nothing but railroad representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. They changed that?

Mr. OLIVER. Finally they put two shippers on the board, and there is still an injustice, Mr. Chairman. There certainly ought to be on that committee one, if not two members, representing the short lines, because those committees are exceedingly biased.

The CHAIRMAN. Even the representatives of the shipping public? Mr. OLIVER. NO; I would not say the shipping public are, but the shipping public, after all, not knowing the particular interests of all the short lines, do not necessarily fight for the short lines, and the railroad representatives are able to bull through and to pull through that class legislation they want. The consequence is that those committees in Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, and everywhere else, are exceedingly biased. A short line can not get any rate application or docket through them, because the short lines have no representation.

As an illustration, on the St. Louis committee there was a Rock Island man who was general freight agent of the Rock Island; on the Chicago committee a Rock Island man who was assistant general freight agent, and on the Kansas City committee, a Rock Island

man, and on the Dallas committee a Rock Island and Gulf man, and the Rock Island man and all these railroad men, working for the administration to-day, especially in this particular instance, appreciate and see coming the time when the roads will go back to their own control, and the consequence is they are watching their own property like hawks, and they are not allowing anything to get away, regardless of the fact that their compensation is guaranteed; they will not allow one pound of tonnage moved off their roads.

Mr. COOPER. They are afraid the shippers will get the bad habit? Mr. OLIVER. Yes; they are not only afraid the shippers will get the bad habit, but they are picayunish in their desire to hurt these shortline roads at a time when they can; if possible, swamp them into oblivion; they feel now is the time, and they are certainly at it, regardless of the fact that the administration has refused to give them support; and they go out and interfere with them. That is nothing short of confiscation, in a sense.

If the adoption of Mr. Cain's amendment, which I do not think fully covers the situation as regards giving the Interstate Commerce Commission sufficient power to force these routings open, is not sufficient to do it, I feel that this suggested amendment will, and I think it should be given very careful consideration, for the sample reason that there is a limit beyond which the trunk-line carriers can go on their allowance of division to the short-line carriers; the short-line carriers naturally do not handle full-tonnage trains, and if given opportunity to go into the open, or otherwise, and secure additional traffic they will fill those trains, and then be able to reduce their cost per unit of operation. But until they are given opportunity to increase their tonnage it is impossible for them to expect to be able to operate on the revenue they are getting.

The CHAIRMAN. How long will it take to ship a carload from Fort Smith over your lien, via Oklahoma City, to Lawton?

Mr. OLIVER. Not exactly knowing what the Frisco service is, I can only say in a general way. Our service, Fort Smith over to Oklahoma City, 227 miles, is 16 hours.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the time from Fort Smith over the Frisco, via, Monett, to Oklahoma City?

Mr. OLIVER. Four days.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do not the shippers in Fort Smith, then, patronize your road, knowing the amount of saving?

Mr. OLIVER. I am glad you asked that question. Mr. Chairman, you would not patronize a road if it was going to cost you 25 or 35 per cent more to use it. The Frisco has got a lower rate than we have to that point down at Lawton.

The CHAIRMAN. Even via Monett?

Mr. OLIVER. The Frisco rate via Monett, and on their own line down to Lawton, is lower than the rate from Fort Smith over to Oklahoma City, thence Frisco, and no shipper can use a route where there is no through rate established and pay higher charges on his freight. He will stand for a lot of delay before he will do that. The CHAIRMAN. Even the saving in time of over three days would not give the trade to your road?

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The saving of the time would not make up the decrease in the rate as between the Frisco and your line?

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir; because the nature of the traffic is such that it does not require expedition. We give a spendid service. For instance, there is a lot of brick, sand, lumber, and stuff of that kind, There is also high-class tonnage, like carload furniture, wagons, etc., but the fact of the matter is, we give such exceedingly good time from Fort Smith over to Oklahoma City, 16 hours, that four days for the Frisco down into Lawton is not unusual time given out in that country for that length of service, four hundred and some odd miles. But if the shippers were to get the benefit of this increased efficiency and shortening of time, they would use our route, but they will never use it if they have to pay higher charges, especially where those charges are considerable.

The CHAIRMAN. They probably would not on that low-priced commodity freight.

Mr. OLIVER. They would not on the low-priced commodity freight, and it is not so much the shipper as the consignee. He ordinarily pays the freight, and it is impossible to go out and get competitive traffic, or compete with any line on freight rates higher than your competitor's. It can not be done. I say that as a railroad man, having handled it for five years, that it is impossible. One-half cent will turn tonnage away, one-half cent a hundred.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; unless time were the essence of the contract. Mr. OLIVER. Time is always an unknown quantity until the service is performed. While it may be generally known what your time is, it is always an unknown quantity until that service is performed. You might have a derailment, a wreck, or something else.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any other suggestion, Mr. Oliver, in regard to the proposed legislation, or any other amendment. Mr. OLIVER. No; I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Before leaving, however, I should like to again impress upon you this important feature so far as short lines are concerned:

First, that they have got to get out and work, and what we ask for here is legislation which will give us the field in which to work. That a property, such as ours, with one-half tonnage trains, can increase those trains to full-tonnage trains, reaching our unit of cost, making it less necessary for greater divisions in revenue, and by giving this field you will help to secure the increased revenue necessary to these short lines in order to allow them to live.

The CHAIRMAN. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Oliver. We will now recess until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee recessed until tomorrow, Friday, September 5, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, September 5, 1919.

STATEMENT OF J. D. CORNELL, OF KANSAS CITY, MO.

The CHAIRMAN. Please state whom you represent, Mr. Cornell. Mr. CORNELL. I represent the Joplin & Pittsburgh Railway and the Kansas City, Kaw Valley & Western Railway, both of which are electrically operated railroads.