had one thought in mind, and that was promoting the general welfare. I think he was one of the wisest and one of the most far-seeing of individuals that we ever had in Government service. And further, I think he was a student beyond any that I know of, either before or since, and I know there have been some very good ones, including Dr. Splawn, of the present Commission, and Mr. Aitchison. I must hurry now because there is a roll call on a bill. Mr. Eastman in his testimony on S. 942 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commecre in 1943 said: It must be clear to any reasonable man that a carrier cannot respond to all of the duties imposed by law if the individual carrier acts in a vacuum. It is a situation which under all of the conditions plainly calls for consultation, conference and organization for many acts of a joint or cooperative territory. I am wholly convinced that if the carriers of the country are to respond to the duties and obligations imposed upon them by the Interstate Commerce Act, and if the rate structure is to be reasonably free from unjust discrimination or undue preference and prejudice, as simple and consistent as may be reasonable, stable and sufficient from financial needs, private ownership and operation, the carriers must be in a position to consult, confer collectively with many phases of the matter, and that while the ultimate right of individual action should be scrupulously preserved, it is desirable that such action should not be taken without prior notice to fellow carriers and shippers and an opportunity for them to express their views. Now, that is a part of his statement in behalf of S. 942 in 1943 which is similar in respect to this bill we now have before us. Mr. WIPRUD. No, that is the point, Mr. Chairman, it is not. That bill dealt alone with rates. I was there and I heard Mr. Eastman testify. You do not have to disagree with that philosophy to be opposed to this bill. This bill extends away beyond rates. The CHAIRMAN. Is the philosophy that he speaks of applied to this situation? Mr. WIPRUD. It does not apply to this bill. He says in many situations. The CHAIRMAN. I must hurry, and I am sorry. This practice has been in effect for 40 years or more, according to the testimony we have had before us. When and how did that policy change? Do you not think individuals have a right to assume that they are acting lawfully when they carry out a practice that has been in effect for 40 years? Mr. WIPRUD. I do not know whether you were here when I testified that the Supreme Court at the turn of the century ruled that this was in violation of the Sherman Act. Then again in 1922 Mr. Justice Brandeis pointed out clearly that these practices might be or are a violation of the Sherman antitrust laws. The CHAIRMAN. And the Department of Justice has not taken any action until your suit was filed. Mr. WIPRUD. I assume there are many monopolies established that they do not take action on when they are established. The CHAIRMAN. How do you justify the fact that other Attorneys General have not over that long period challenged this practice which Mr. Eastman said is necessary in our transportation system? Mr. WIPRUD. Mr. Eastman did not say it is necessary, for one thing. The CHAIRMAN. He said the principle of conferring. Mr. WIPRUD. There is no violation in conferring. The CHAIRMAN. If the principle of conferring together as outlined by Mr. Eastman is true, then what amendment would you make to this bill that would carry out what you say was his understanding? Mr. WIPRUD. Well, I would say to begin with that there is no violation of any law to confer. Mr. Eastman was not for S. 942. He had in mind a different bill, and I think that that appears of record. I talked with Mr. Eastman afterwards in regard to this entire situation. He believes a conference is necessary to carry out certain provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, but this bill covered the field. The bill completely immunizes a basic industry, and I say it is a complete departure from our American free enterprise system. The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry that our time has been concluded. I understand that Chester A. Thompson wishes to introduce a statement on behalf of the barge owners. Mr. THOMPSON. I do, Mr. Chairman. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. THOMPSON ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC., IN SUPPORT OF BULWINKLE-REED BILL My name is Chester C. Thompson. I am president of the American Waterways Operators, Inc., which is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with the principal office at 1319 F Street NW., Washington, D. C., and is an association of common, contract, and private water carriers who operate throughout the Ohio and Mississippi River systems, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and waterways in California and Washington. The organization is a nonprofit corporation which has for its general purposes the consideration and solution of problems of management and policy affecting the operation and welfare of domestic water carriers. The American Waterways Operators wholeheartedly endorses the so-called Bulwinkle-Reed bill and urges its prompt enactment by the Congress. It believes that the Russell amendment to S. 110 should be stricken from the bill as it is most confusing and will subject this proposed legislation to almost endless litigation in the courts. The water carriers and operators of the United States whose operations are to varying degrees subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission, sincerely believe the basic principles of the proposed legislation are sound, necessary for successful transportation operation, and definitely in the public interest. The safeguards contained in the bill give the Interstate Commerce Commission ample authority and jurisdiction to prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to enable it to police any and all agreements betweeen carriers so that the rights of the public, the shippers, and the individual carriers will always be preserved and protected. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the American Waterways Operators, Inc., does not publish any tariffs, either as agent or for individual carrier members of the association; nor is it in any manner, shape, or form concerned or consulted in the rate-making policies of the members of the association. As a matter of fact, the inland and intracoastal barge lines, with one minor exception, publish their rates in their own individual issues. The agency and rate-conference method of rate making has had little place in the water carrier transportation business. Certain inland water carriers, do, however, have joint rates with other water carriers, with rail carriers, and to some extent with motor carriers. In connection with these joint rates, there necessarily must be agreements among the involved carriers as to the absorption of transfer, switching, harbor services, per diem on floating equipment, and other important items that present themselves in joint through rate traffic in which water carriers are involved. Some of these joint rates with rail carriers are published in rail agency issues, while others are published by the water carriers, probably better known as barge lines, under concurrences of the rail carriers participating in the joint rates. The same is true with motor carriers who join water carriers or barge lines in joint rates. These carriers must confer on rate and matters pertinent to rates, or the whole desirable purpose of joint rates will be defeated, and the benefits of joint rates lost to the shipping public. These carriers should not be subjected to prosecution if they confer under the rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the agency directed by the Congress to supervise such matters. Many of the common carrier water carriers and barge lines obtain their legal authority for joint rates with rail carriers from the Dennison Act of 1928, Public Law 601 of the Seventieth Congress. For the information of the committee, I quote the following from the Dennison Act of 1928: "(e) Any person, firm, or corporation, including the Inland Waterways Corporation, engaged or about to engage in conducting a common-carrier service upon the Warrior River or the Mississippi River, or any tributaries thereof, may apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission and obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and the Interstate Commerce Commission shall thereupon, by order, direct all connecting common carriers and their connections to join with such water carrier in through routes and joint rates with reasonable rules, regulations, and practices, as provided in paragraph (3) of section 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and the Commission shall, in such order, fix reasonable minimum differentials between all rail rates and joint rates in connection with said water service to apply until changed by order of the Commission. Such joint routes, rates, rules, regulations, and practices may be changed by order of the Commission or by agreement of the water carriers and the other participating carriers. The Commission shall further require the interested common carriers to enter into negotiations for the purpose of establishing equitable divisions of the aforesaid joint differential rates within 30 days after such joint rates are established, Thus any common carrier barge line operating on the Mississippi River system or the Warrior River is directed and required under the law to negotiate and to attempt to reach agreements with the rail carriers as to the measure of the rates which they and the rail lines shall charge under a joint rate arrangement. think it can be fairly said in passing that there has been much negotiation and little agreement as between the water carriers and the railroads in the working out of those joint rates and the majority of the joint rates which are now in effect have been published only upon orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. However, even after an order of the Commission has been entered requiring the rail lines to enter into joint rates with a water carrier, it is still necessary for representatives of the rail lines and the water carriers to sit down and work out the rates together upon the differential basis prescribed by the Commission. * * "" * The attention of the committee is directed to the fact that the Maritime Commission may approve certain joint action by water carriers engaged in foreign commerce in substantially the same manner as the Interstate Commerce Commission may for domestic carriers under the terms of this bill. The Shipping Act of 1916 confers this exemption upon these "offshore" water carriers. I The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 also provides that air carriers be relieved from the operation of the antitrust laws with respect to the making of agreements approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board. This gives air carriers also substantially the same exemption that is provided in Bulwinkle-Reed bill. It appears, therefore, that the enactment of this bill will but serve to place the railroads, truck lines, and domestic water carriers in the same position as enjoyed by air carriers and water carriers engaged in foreign commerce. This committee has heard from representatives of shippers' organizations and other forms of transportation, many more of the details as to the necessity for the enactment of this legislation, and so I shall not reiterate them. The American Waterways Operators, Inc., endorse, in general, the statements made on behalf of the bill by the representatives of the railroads and the truck lines. It is convinced that this legislation is in the interest of the shippers, the railroads, the truck lines, the freight forwarders, and the water carriers and will, if enacted into law, be of much assistance in the establishment of a sound national transportation system as contemplated by the Transportation Act of 1940. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who has anything to say before we close the hearings? STATEMENT OF J. CARTER FORT, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, WASHINGTON, D. C.-Resumed Mr. FORT. Mr. Chairman, may I say one word. Mr. Wiprud appeared here Friday as a witness without a written statement having been served in advance under the requirements of the rules, and he finished that statement Friday. He appeared here today supposedly for cross-examination, and made another long tirade, without having filed a written statement. His language throughout was not marked by that objectivity, that sobriety and that judicial quality which is designed to throw the light of reason and truth on the problem which is before us. On the other hand, the statement he made was so fanciful in many respects and so fantastic that Alice in Wonderland is as factual as a bookkeeper's report compared with what Mr. Wiprud said to you. Mr. WIPRUD. I will be glad to submit the documentary evidence, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FORT. I think most of the things he said are answered in my original testimony. If the committee desires any further answer, I would be very glad to make it. The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact that Mr. Wiprud has not presented to the committee the statement in written form as the rules require, I think that you should have that privilege. . We will insert into the record at this point a copy of a Western Union night letter, dated June 19, 1947, addressed to the Honorable Harry S. Truman, President of the United States. (The telegram is as follows:) To the Honorable HARRY S. TRUMAN, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., JUNE 19, 1947. President of the United States, Washington, D. C.: The undersigned representatives of industry and transportation assembled at meeting today join in urging your approval of the Bulwinkle-Reed bill designed to continue orderly procedure in publishing freight rates and rules governing transportation. Failure to approve bill will result in chaos in rate making and freezing of present rate structure to the disadvantage of shippers and railroads. Judd F. Adams, Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Kenneth R. Almy, Russell Miller Milling Co. R. M. Andreas, B. F. Nelson Manufacturing Co. H. J. Beislerfeldt, Illinois Central Railroad. C. H. Campbell, Illinois Central Railroad. C. Don Cooper, Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. Dan F. Donovan, B. F. Nelson Manufacturing Co. O. L. Grisamore, Illinois Central Railroad. T. Aldo Johnson, Van Dusen Harrington Co. Edward Kunkel, C. H. Robinson Co. Stan M. Low, Koppers Co., Inc. George M. Luck, General Mills, Inc. Otto R. Mortenson, Cargill, Inc. Frank R. Newman, Great Northern Railway. Wesley E. Newman, Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Carl Č. Pardee, Commander Milling Co. Al B. Pratt, Northern States Power Co. 64132-47- -19 O. I. Romfo, Atkinson Milling Co. E. J. Schellenberger, King Midas Flour Mills, Inc. D. B. Sweeney, Illinois Central Railroad. Frank B. Townsend, Minneapolis Traffic Association. The CHAIRMAN. We will also insert in the record at this point a letter dated June 24, 1947, from the Department of Transportation of the University of Pittsburgh. (The letter is as follows:) Hon. ALFRED L. BULWINKLE, Washington, D. C. THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, Pittsburgh, Pa., June 24, 1947. DEAR MR. BULWINKLE: During the several months past the public press has given considerable attention to the so-called Bulwinkle-Reed measure, recently approved by the Senate. I am sure that you have had before the House a bill dealing with the same problem, but the number of that measure has escaped me. If hearings have been held upon this proposal by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I would greatly appreciate receipt of a copy of those hearings. I would also like much to have a copy of any report issued, or to be issued, by the committee. May I say that I have admired greatly your efforts to obtain equitable treatment for rail and motor carriers in this matter of single instead of dual control of ratemaking activities. In view of controls exercised over both types of transport by the Interstate Commerce Commission, I can see no possible reason for subjecting of these carriers to the provisions of the Sherman Act--exposing them thus to the vagaries of the Department of Justice. I trust that your efforts to improve this situation may, before even this session of Congress adjourns, be rewarded by complete success. Again, I congratulate you on the work you are doing. Thanking you for such help as you may give me in connection with my plea, above, I am, Very truly yours, SIDNEY L. MILLER, Head. The CHAIRMAN. We will insert in the record at this point a list of organizations supporting S. 110, as shown by the record of hearings on H. R. 2536, Seventy-ninth Congress, and S. 110, Eightieth Congress. (The list is as follows:) ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING S. 110 The following is a list of organizations supporting S. 110 as shown by the record of hearings on H. R. 2536, Seventy-ninth Congress, and S. 110, Eightieth Congress. GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES, STATE AND FEDERAL Arizona Corporation Commission. Arkansas Public Service Commission. California Railroad Commission. California Senate and House Joint Resolution. Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Connecticut Public Utilities Commission. Florida Railroad Commission. Florida State Senate. Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. |