Mr. WELCH. The demand for it must exist, otherwise there is no necessity for it. Have you heard a ddmand on the part of the public or any interest at all with reference to publicly owned ports of this country?

That I must respectfully refer to the other witnesses who may be better qualified than I would be to answer the question.

Mr. WELCH. Are there witnesses that will follow you that can speak on that?

Mr. MAGINNIS. I do not know. We are simply touching on the bill, and so far as the question of wharfages and ports as they may affect it are concerned, I would say that that would be for you gentlemen after you have heard from the witnesses, after you have heard the testimony or statements or whatever it might be, of those who have appeared here who are directly interested and conversant with it and able to discuss it.

Mr. WELCH. Then you are not interested in this bill in its entirety? Mr. MAGINNIS. So far as it appears to us, yes, in its entirety, including the points in which you are interested.

Mr. WELCH. You feel, then, that the Federal Government should regulate publicly owned harbor facilities?

Mr. MAGINNIS. If it is in the interest of the country as a whole, yes, sir.

Mr. WELCH. Is it in the interest? Have you heard of any demand on the part of the public for such regulation?

Mr. MAGINNIS. Of course, there is this way of looking at it: If at the present time Congress finds that the present situation is satisfactory, it can always add the harbor facilities owned by the States at any session of Congress. It does not necessarily change the necessity for this bill. I take it the bill, sponsored by the Coordinator, coming from another agency of the Government which had made a study of it, was based upon the experience of the Coordinator in connection with this study of the situation of docks owned by private individuals in competition with the States. If you leave either the State-owned ports or the publicly owned ports out, do you not give a preference on it? I do not know. Perhaps you might be right in leaving them out at this time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The short-line railroads that you represent do not, as a rule, come in direct contact with the ocean ports, do they? Mr. MAGINNIS. No.

Mr. MANSFIELD. They are generally inland?

Mr. MAGINNIS. That is ture.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is what I thought.

Mr. MAGINNIS. We come in contact, Mr. Mansfield, only through the class I railroads, that is, as a whole.

In very rate cases do our roads come in contact with the ocean ports.

Mr. MANSFIELD. You have not given that feature of the bill as much thought as you have other features?

Mr. MAGINNIS. I think that is ture, although I would say on that point that we would take the same viewpoint as the class I railroads, on whom we are depending for business. We are all a part of a big system.

Mr. MANSFIELD. We can see what is next to us, but we cannot see what is in the distance.

Mr. MAGINNIS. That is ture; it is all a part of a big system.

STATEMENT OF A. D. STEBBINS, PRESIDENT, MERCHANTS & MINERS TRANSPORTATION CO.

Mr. STEBBINS. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is A. D. Stebbins, of Baltimore. I am president of the Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., but I am speaking to you, in order to conserve the committee's time, in behalf of a number of steamship companies operating in the coastwise, intercoastal, and Gulf interstate business. These companies are: Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc., Clyde-Mallory Lines, Luckenbach Steamship Co.; Luckenbach Gulf Steamship Co., Grace Line, American-Hawaiian Steamship Co.; Philadelphia & Norfolk Steamship Co.; Williams Steamship Corporation, Merchants & Miners Transportation Co. In advocating the enactment of H. R. 5379, preferably in accordance with the committee print, we wish to call your attention first to the fact that these lines are operating about 200 steamships with a gross registered tonnage of over a million tons.

As we consider no basic industry more important than the transportation system of the country, on which all other industrial and commercial activities depend, we feel that it is in the interest of the public that the country should have the most modern and efficient transportation facilities that it is humanly possible to provide, and that an industry of such vital importance to the public should be regulated in the public interest and that such regulation must extend to all forms of transportation, and can best be administered by one body.

We believe that to accomplish this end in the public interest, as well as the welfare of the carriers all rates should be stabilized and the various forms of transportation coordinated, so that each mode of transportation may be permitted to function in its logical field as best serves the need of the public, and the regulation should also aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication of services, thus avoiding waste in the transportation services rendered the public, because eventually the public must pay the bill.

In the regulation of rates, we feel that due consideration should be given to the character and cost of each form of transportation, that is, the rail lines, water, highways, and so forth, and that in such regulation due regard should be given to the natural advantages of each form as may most effectively meet the public need; and we believe that this bill provides the ways and means for such regulation and coordination.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, in addition to regulating the all-rail rates now, are also regulating all the rates of some of the steamship lines, notably the New England Steamship Co., the Southern Pacific Steamship Co., the Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah, the Baltimore Steam Packet Co., and the Chesapeake Steamship Co., and others. In addition to those they are regulating at the present time all of our joint through rates, so that it leaves only the port-to-port rates that they are not now regulating in domestic traffic.

We feel that the Interstate Commerce Commission is the most thoroughly equipped, and with its vast experience extending over many years is the most competent body not only to regulate the service, rates and practices, but to promptly coordinate the various activities of the different modes of transportation, not only in the interest

of the public, but with due regard for the welfare of the transportation companies themselves.

It has been suggested that the regulation of the water lines by the Interstate Commerce Commission may result in their rates being advanced to the detriment of the water lines and to the advantage of the all-rail lines. In such views we do not concur, and think our conviction on this point is borne out by the unprejudiced and impartial administration of their duties as we have observed them for many years in our intercourse with the Commission; nor do we doubt for a moment that the Commission would fail to observe the mandate of Congress as expressed in this bill to maintain water transportation in its full vigor.

Therefore, we wish to record our approval of this bill, H. R. 5379, preferably in accordance with the committee print, with the firm conviction that it will result in the accomplishment of the purposes Congress has in view.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. MANSFIELD. You do not include Lykes Brothers in your list, do you?

Mr. STEBBINS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stebbins.

STATEMENT OF CLYDE S. BAILEY, ASSISTANT GENERAL SOLICITOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Clyde S. Bailey. I am the assistant solicitor of the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners. My office is in the Earle Building, in this city. I appear here by the direction of the president and of the executive committee of the association.

Our association embraces within its membership the members of the regulatory commissions of the several States except Delaware, which has no commission, and New York, the two commissions of which, at the present time, are not actively identified with our association. The members of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia are also members of our association, but upon matters of legislation pending before Congress the members of these Federal commissions never take part in determining the position of the association. The State commission representatives determine that position from the point of view of such state commissions. Hence, what we say before Congress upon this bill, or upon any other bill, should be considered as said only upon behalf of the State commission membership of the association.

A joint meeting of the executive committee of our association was held with members of our committee on legislation, on February 16, 1935, to discuss various bills pending before Congress, this bill among others. I was then directed to appear at the hearing on this bill, and to state that the association favors the enactment of legislation providing for the full regulation of water carriers, but so drawn as fully to protect the powers and jurisdiction of the States.

We ask to have the following amendments made to the pending bill: Amend section 202 by adding a new paragraph (e) as follows:

(e) Nothing in this part shall be construed to apply to any water carrier or wharfingers not engaged in interstate transportation, or to confer any jurisdiction upon the Commission to prescribe or in any manner regulate any rate, fare, classification, regulation or practice applicable only to intrastate transportation.

Amend section 203 by adding a new paragraph (n) as follows:

(n) The term "intrastate transportation" as used in this part includes all transportation which is not included within the meaning of "interstate transportation" as defined in paragraph (1) of this section.

That is all I desire to say, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE BRENT, REPRESENTING THE
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION ET AL.

Mr. BRENT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear for the Mississippi Valley Association, which has already been outlined to you. I also appear for the Upper Mississippi River Waterway Association, an organization having a membership of some 500 firms and individuals in cities and towns on the Mississippi River above St. Louis.

I also appear for the Mississippi and St. Croix River Improvement Commission, a body created by the Legislature of Minnesota for the purpose of assisting in the development of the Mississippi and its tributaries, and the development of commerce upon those rivers.

I have been engaged in transportation work since 1896, 18 years in the railroad business. I was on the first ill-fated Shipping Board under the 1916 act. For 9 years I was the Federal manager of the Federal Barge Line. For 4 years I operated a line in the intercoastal trade between the Gulf ports and the Pacific coast. I am presently half owner in a small line operating between New Orleans, Mobile, and Pensacola, along the Gulf in the inland waterways.

I appear here in regard to merely the provisions of this bill having to do with domestic traffic and not in relation to those provisions having to do with foreign traffic, except as the domestic traffic fits the foreign traffic.

I presented to the Senate committee an analysis of this bill by sections. I do not intend to read it. I have prepared a general statement, which I will read.

The organizations which I represent are opposed to H. R. 5379. We believe this whole scheme for the limitation and regulation by any agency of the Federal Government of the domestic water-borne commerce of this country is inimical to the interests of the farmers, the industries, the commerce, and the consumers of the country who are already paying a higher transportation tax than the domestic commerce of the country can continue to struggle under.

Common, contract, and private carriers on the Lakes, bays, sounds, rivers, bayous, and canals, and along our coasts are natural regulators of the cost of domestic transportation. They are in free and open competition wherever there is a navigable waterway. Their rates, because of this competition, always approach the minimum at which domestic commerce can be carried profitably.

141408-35-PT 1-17

They do not require a public tribunal to limit their operations or fix their minimum rates in the public interest. Such authority lodged in any Federal agency can only serve to increase the general cost of transportation by all means of transportation. The Coordinator of Transportation admits that the scheme will have this effect.

The pending bill is what the railroads want. Legislation for the limitation and regulation of highway and water services in interstate commerce by the Interstate Commerce Commission was adopted as a matter of major policy in the plan for this rehabilitation of railroad securities formulated by the Association of Railroad Executives in 1930. Ever since that time it has been forced upon the public attention by the most elaborate system of organized propaganda. Through the medium of traffic clubs, luncheon clubs, radio broadcasts, and theough the pronouncements of organizations of railroad security holders, and railroad supply interests the so-called "plight of the railroads" has been attributed to the loss of traffic incident to the lack of Federal agency which could limit and regulate the highway and water services.

The railroads helped to secure the passage of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act of 1933. Under the provisions of this act the Coordinator of Transportation has made studies, one of which has resulted in his bringing here and urging the passage of the pending water-carrier bill, H. R. 5379. Some amendments and minor changes from the bill presented to the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce in March have been made and are explained in footnotes to the various paragraphs of the committee print. They serve to modify a few of the most glaring enormities of the first draft, but the essential purpose remains the same.

Under the pending bill, coupled with the motor-carrier bill which has passed the Senate, a presumably benevolent governmental oligarchy consisting of nine men constituting the Interstate Commerce Commission, is presumed through some occult power to equitably parcel out the entire domestic commerce of the Nation, and so fix the rates and limit the services of these several agencies that each form of transportation will be able to live and make a profit, and build up their respective plants out of the traffic which agriculture, industry, and commerce must move in order that the ordinary processes of production and consumption may continue to exist.

The law is not written in specific terms. Almost every important provision gives discretionary powers to the Commission so broad as to include the powers to destroy, and the report of the Coordinator clearly anticipates that what he regards as the less valuable service will not survive. The Commission is to act somewhat in the nature of a handicapping committee at a race track. These nine men are to decide what is the proper place in the scheme for 10,000 ton ships on the Great Lakes, and how many or how few 100 ton boats may operate on the Lakes, bays, rivers, canals, and who may be privileged to run them. The public is to accept the result or incur expensive litigation to change it. We are to have a Utopia in which there shall be not too much water service, or highway service to seriously interfere with profitable operation of the present railroad plant.

We believe it is clearly evident that the processes of so-called "coordination" should have begun with a scaling down of an unjusti