same period, other classes of station and tower employees-who were not subject to any State regulatory control whatever, declined in exactly the same proportion-40 percent. Exhibit 20 shows the trend of employment of station agents and telegraphers since 1921. Clearly, the railroads have had their own way in this question, even though, for their own good, they should have been restrained in their efforts to curtail service. Exhibit 21 shows the number of passenger-train-miles operated, by years. In 1921, the carriers operated 560,499,000 train-miles in passenger service; in 1957, this had been reduced to 275,766,000-a drop of almost exactly 50 percent. Thus, the carriers have just cut in half the amount of passenger service they are furnishing. In the light of this record, if Federal jurisdiction is to be extended in this field, the need is for authority to compel the expansion and improvement of service, rather than to provide means for its further curtailment. If we had more confidence in the Interstate Commerce Commission, we would think it appropriate for legislation to be enacted giving the Commission authority to order and require the carriers to build up their service where public needs were shown, or to restore service that has already been discontinued. We feel the public should be given a right to require the carriers to furnish reasonable, adequate, and attractive service. Unfortunately, the attitude of the Interstate Commerce Commission in recent years-apparently in common with the thinking of other regulatory agencies has tended increasingly to reflect the thinking of the industries they are intended to regulate. Under these circumstances, we doubt whether a present extension of Federal authority of the kind we would propose would effectively protect the public interest. It is only for this reason that we are not making an affirmative proposal on this subject. In brief, we think the railways and the public would be better served if the railways were made to go out and fight to get their business back. They should be required to build their facilities up to reclaim every possible passenger- and ton-mile. They should not be allowed by any authority to shrink their operations any further. CONCLUSION I have spoken earlier of the fact that the railways are common carriers. But the vast majority of them do not want to perform their duties as common carriers. They say they want to compete for business like any other private industry. But, frankly, we don't believe the railways want to compete. They know there are certain areas where they possess such an overpowering advantage that they don't have to fret about losing anything. They can charge any rate the ICC will authorize; they can handle the traffic when they want it, as fast or as slowly as they want to-and, if the shipper does not like it, he knows what he can do about it. But the railways don't really want to be bothered about anything else. It's too much trouble to carry passengers, or less carload freight, or any other kind of freight that they can't handle easily and inexpensively without fear of truck or barge competition. And it's too much trouble to bother with branch-line service. In short, what the carriers want to do is to restore their complete monopoly position. In order to do this, they want to get out of any part of their present business where they don't have a monopoly status or where some effort and service is required to retain the business. That is why they are getting out of the passenger business as fast as they can. Although much of that business is profitable, it doesn't pay as well as other traffic, so, why bother with it? The same for other things. Thus, they are trying to strip themselves down to the point where they won't have to handle anything but the best. They really want to discard the obligation of common carriers and want to retain only its monopolistic advantages. They have in mind remaking their systems into special-and well-favoredfinancial enterprises. Because of the shortage of time, I am not going to make a dissertation in connection with this, but I could spend hours telling you about things they have done. I have related only a few of them in this prepared statement. But my files are replete with instances where they have done just exactly what we say in this particular paragraph. We think it should be stopped. The railways should be fighting to regain their position in every field. Instead of finding means of cutting down on train revenues in order to justify a basis for discontinuing service, they should be sending salesmen into the field, holding meetings, improving facilities, speeding up service, and reducing fares and rates so as to attract back their lost passengers and ton-miles. Railway labor wants to cooperate in every way possible to help the railways, but it wants the railways to continue as common carriers. If railway managements will formulate a fighting program aimed at recovering their strong and preeminent position as a transportation leader, they will find the railway workers and their organizations solidly behind them. (The following exhibits were submitted by Mr. Leighty :) EXHIBITS FILED BY G. E. LEIGHTY, CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY LABOR EXHIBIT NO. 1.-Ratio of fixed and contingent charges to operating revenues and income available to fixed and contingent charges, class I line-haul railways, 1921-57 Source: Interstate Commerce Commission, Statistics of Kailways in the United States, statements M-100 and M-125. EXHIBIT NO. 2.-Total capital expenditures for additions and betterments, class I line-haul railways, 1921–57 Source: Bureau of Railway Economics, Association of American Railroads; Interstate Commerce Commission, statements M-125. EXHIBIT NO. 3.-Age of locomotives in the United States, class I line-haul railways, as of Dec. 31, 1936, 1941, 1946, and 1956 Source: Interstate Commerce Commission, Statistics of Railways in the United States. EXHIBIT NO. 4.—Age of freight-carrying cars in the United States, class I |