Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is the idea. We are very much obliged to you and to the other members of the commission. The CHAIRMAN. The following letters and suggestions may be inserted in the record: Hon. ELBERT H. HUBBARD, Washington, D. C. CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, February 18, 1910. DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the board of directors of the Cedar Rapids Commercial Club, held Monday, February 14, the following resolution was unanimously passed: "Resolved, That the Cedar Rapids Commercial Club heartily indorses the statement and argument of Mr. S. K. Cowan, attorney for the American National Live Stock Association, made before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, on February 8, 1910. "We believe that the proposal to take from the commission all responsibility respecting the defense of its orders, leaving it only where attorneys appointed by the Department of Justice will appear in such cases in court, is a gross injustice to the interest of all shippers and the people in depriving them of their rights to have the Interstate Commerce Commission, after making its orders, charged with the responsibility to put them in effect, from employing the means which it deems best; and, further, that the specific right of shippers to appear in any court involving the validity of the orders of the commission made in behalf of such shippers should be provided for in the law. "We heartily approve of Mr. Cowan's suggested amendment, on pages 14 and 15, as representing a fair and just provision to accomplish such purpose, feeling that such provisos will mean the equity which both the shippers and commission are entitled to; and be it further "Resolved, That the Secretary is hereby instructed to communicate the foregoing to all Representatives and Senators from Iowa, requesting their support." Will you kindly give this a favorable consideration at the proper time, and advise? JOHN WUNDERLICH, Secretary. Yours, very truly, P. S. Copies of Mr. Cowan's arguments can be had on application to Hon. James R. Mann, chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. OKLAHOMA CITY, February 18, 1910. Hon. JAS. R. MANN, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: This will refer to my former letter of February 11 on the subject of the interstate commerce court. I have had a communication from Judge Cowan in which he points out the fact that the court proposed in the Townsend bill is different from that which the shippers generally wish to have organized. I think that on the whole there is very little difference of opinion between Judge Cowan and myself on this matter. Unless the court is to be composed of men especially qualified to deal with subjects involving transportation, at least a minority of them preferably selected from the present membership of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and unless they can either sit permanently at some central location, or, like the Interstate Commerce Commission itself, have hearings at various points to suit the convenience of the great masses of people who have cases upon appeal, and unless the court would be given exclusive jurisdiction of injunction proceedings against state transportation commissions and legislatures on transportation propositions, I do not see that it would be of much benefit to the shippers. On the contrary, I believe that it would be more of a menace than anything else. We are opposed to the centralization at Washington of any more of the instrumentalities pertaining to regulation and control of interstate commerce, fully believing that matters of this kind are somewhat different from legislative affairs, and the shippers' means of redress should be brought as near to the center of population as possible. Either Chicago or St. Louis would be far preferable to Washington. If this court is not going to be of any benefit, we can see no particular reason why the additional expense of its creation should be incurred. Respectfully, yours, J. H. JOHNSTON. SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION, Hon. JAMES R. MANN, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The short-line railroads, numbering more than 500 roads, with a mileage of less than 100 miles each, represented by the Short Line Railroad Association, earnestly appeal to your committee to modify the exactions imposed on the short-line roads under the interstate-commerce law as applied to printing the tariffs of these roads. Under the act all railroads are required to file printed schedules. This imposes a heavy expense on the little roads, which they are illy able to bear and should not be forced to bear, particularly as a majority of them run wholly within one State. The principal cost in printing is composition and make ready; it is therefore plain that 10 or 20 copies of the printed tariffs of the short-line roads cost them within a fraction as much as 500 or 1,000 copies cost the longer or through lines. The expense incurred by the short lines in this particular is out of all proportion to that which they are entitled to pay. It aggregates with them more than a million dollars a year. In view of this, as no public benefits arise from the particular form prescribed by the law in publishing the tariffs, as applied to short-route roads, we suggest that section 6 of the interstate-commerce law be amended so as to permit the commission, in their discretion, to allow typewritten, mimeograph, or hexograph schedules to be filed in lieu of those printed. Trusting you will fully consider this matter and bring it to the attention of your honorable committee, we remain, Yours, very truly, SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION, Secretary and Treasurer. Hon. JAMES R. MANN, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 21, 1910. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: While not connected at this time with the limited question before you relating to water lines, namely, bearing of section 9 of the proposed act known as administration measure, there is a point that I would like to lay before you, as a representative of the people, which does have a very great bearing on the present question. There is, I believe, a simple and direct plan to enact a law which will settle this whole controversy in the interests of the people, will preserve their water lines from railroad domination, and will leave them free under the natural laws of trade to perform their great duties in rate regulation. The plan, I think, is worthy of consideration, at least as a suggestion, and I think something of great importance may grow out of it in simplifying the question and in reaching what the people and their representatives demand. This, of course, is only limited to that portion of the commerce act which has any relation to water carriers. I know your time is limited and you are very much overworked, but before the matter of the proposed administration bill is settled I thought you might like to have this other matter before you, and you could determine whether it is wise at this time to inject it. My own view is that at this session it is best to leave the water lines in statu quo by restoring the omitted clause and aiming to prevent possible repeal of the marine statutes, and adding definitive language in keeping the water hauls of the water lines at least temporarily free and independent; to give them, as it were, a breathing spell, in order that we may intelligently, carefully, and effectively put on the statute books comprehensive measures to preserve equilibrium between water and land carriers. I think the suggestion I would like to offer to you as a representative of the people would at least have the virtue of simplicity, and, after a full consideration of all the light that can be gotten on it, perhaps efficiency in accomplishing the fullest purpose the people demand. I write this to you in your personal capacity as a representative of the people, and not as chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. If you think there is any virtue in the suggestion, you will know best whether it ought to come before the committee or not at this time. What I fear is that too much suggestion may cloud the situation rather than clear it, and if the water lines can be let alone at this session it gives a ripe opportunity to propose something adequate at the next session. I know you have taken quite an interest in transportation matters and, as it is one of your specialties, I thought this would be the best method of getting the matter before the other representatives interested in such legislation. Believe me to be, my dear sir, Respectfully, yours, DANIEL H. HAYNE. ADDENDA. House bill 17536, has just been changed to House bill 21232. Please consider the word "character," located on sixth line of page 20 of House bill 21232 in reading this brief. SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF FILED IN BEHALF OF WATER CARRIERS, WHICH SEE FOR FULLER EXPLANATION. Amendment proposed: After the word "character," page 19, line 10, of S. 5106, and page 18, line 23, of H. R. 17536, insert: "And provided that this act shall only apply to a water carrier where no reasonable or satisfactory through route by rail and water exists, but this shall exclude the power to establish a through rail and water route where a reasonable or satisfactory through route by rail exists; and this act shall not be construed so as to in anywise affect such water carriers' water traffic; and any transportation by water affected by this act shall be subject to the laws and regulations applicable to transportation by water." The object of this amendment is: 1. That the water lines' local traffic may not be subjected to the risk of artificial regulation except where no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists. 2. That there be no doubt that the Revised Statutes of the United States, limiting risk at sea, are not repealed. 3. That the possibility of mistake in construction may be removed by definitive language protecting the local traffic of water carriers. It being admitted no change of status quo, with regard to water carriers, is intended, this amendment is suggested to remove all doubt which has been expressed on the effect of S. 5106 and H. R. 17536. The section of the present interstate-commerce act and the proposed amendments in Senate bill 5106 and House bill 17536 relating to water transportation. (The words in italics show the parts of the act to which reference is made.) Extract from section 15 of the present interstate-commerce law: "The commission may also, after hearing on a complaint, establish through routes and joint rates as the maximum to be charged and prescribe the division of such rates as hereinbefore provided, and the terms and conditions under which such through routes shall be operated, when that may be necessary to give effect to any provision of this act, and the carriers complained of have refused or neglected to voluntarily establish such through routes and joint rates, provided no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists, and this provision shall apply when one of the connecting carriers is a water line." Extract from section 9 of the proposed amendments to the interstate-commerce law, known as Senate bill 5106 and House bill 17536: "The commission may also, after hearing on a complaint, or upon its own initiative without complaint, establish through routes and joint classifications, and may establish joint rates as the maximum to be charged and may prescribe the division of such rates as hereinbefore provided, and the terms and conditions under which such through routes shall be operated, whenever the carriers themselves shall have refused or neglected to establish voluntarily such through routes or joint classifications or joint rates; and this provision shall apply when one of the connecting carriers is a water line. The commission shall not, however, establish any through route, classification, or rate between street, suburban, or interurban electric passenger railways and railroads of a different character." The following words are omitted from above section 9: “Provided no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists." The above extract from section 9 of Senate bill 5106 and House bill 17536, amended as proposed herein, would read as follows: "The commission may also, after hearing, on a complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, establish through routes and joint classifications, and may establish joint rates as the maximum to be charged, and may prescribe the division of such rates as hereinbefore provided and the terms and conditions under which such through routes shall be operated, whenever the carriers themselves shall have refused or neglected to establish voluntarily such through routes or joint classification or joint rates; and this provision shall apply when one of the connecting carriers is a water line. The commission shall not, however, establish any through route, classification, or rate between street, suburban, or interurban electric passenger railways and railroads of a different character: And provided, That this act shall only apply to a water carrier where no reasonable or satisfactory through route by rail and water exists; but this shall not exclude the power to establish a through rail and water route where a reasonable or satisfactory through route by rail exists; and this act shall not be construed so as to in anywise affect such water carrier's water traffic; and any transportation by water affected by this act shall be subject to the laws and regulations applicable to transportation by water." (The proposed amendment is shown in italics.) (The committee thereupon adjourned.) о |