(1) The El Dorado Chamber of Commerce qualified its affirmative votes on the fourth proposition by the provision that the public be heard in cases in which there was objection to voluntary consolidation. (2) The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, although voting as opposed to the fourth proposition, stated that it was favorable to voluntary consolidation.

(3) The New Haven Chamber of Commerce noted its approval of the tenth proposition with a reservation in favor of the repeal of the prohibition against the operation of railroad-owned ships through the Panama Canal. The New Haven chamber's affirmative votes on the eleventh proposition were qualified by eliminating the words "in the published tariffs" and "beginning at the centers of greatest congestion," in lines 2 and 4, respectively, of this proposition.

(4) The Norwich Chamber of Commerce qualified its negative votes on the fourth proposition by indicating that it would not oppose purely voluntary consolidations. The affirmative votes of the Norwich chamber on the fifth proposition were made subject to the proviso that the application of the proposed policy be left to the assent of the individual railroads. On the eighth proposition the affirmative action was qualified by the proviso that to the Army Engineers be added practical business and transportation experts with whom final decision should rest.

(5) The Standard Container Manufacturers, although voting in favor of the third proposition, limited its action to an approval at the present time of the provisions of the transportation act, while expressing doubt as to the soundness of the principle of recapture.

(6) The Bloomington (Ill.) Association of Commerce qualified its affirmative votes on the fourteenth proposition by providing that the special tax levies for highway maintenance be made subject to State laws. (7) The National Furniture Warehousemen's Association, voting in approval of the fifth proposition, stated that it was opposed to common ownership which would eliminate competition.

(8) The National Hardwood Lumber Association, although voting in opposition to the third proposition, indicated that it would not be opposed to the committee's recommendation if other provisions of the transportation act were retained.

(9) The Atchison Chamber of Commerce, although voting in favor of the second proposition, stated that it was opposed to section 5 of the transportation act, which provided for the consolidation of railroad properties into a limited number of systems.

(10) The New Orleans Association of Commerce, voting in favor of the second proposition, qualified its votes by the limitation that the provisions of the transportation act be continued for at least the present session of Congress. Although not voting on the fourth proposition, the association stated that it was in favor of legislation that would make easier voluntary consolidation, but was opposed to legislation already introduced. In voting affirmatively on the ninth proposition, the association desired to qualify its votes by citation of the Ransdell and Dennison bills. On the fourteenth proposition the association declined to register its view on the ground that the matter was for State rather than for interstate regulation and, further, that a greater proportion of taxes should be paid by common carriers than by other users of motor vehicles.

(11) The Boston Chamber of Commerce, voting in favor of the third proposition, indicated its belief that the principle of recapture was not an essential part of the rule of rate making. While voting in the

affirmative on the eleventh proposition, the Boston chamber dissented from that portion of the recommendation which provided that the carrying out of the proposal be commenced in the centers of greatest congestion with the thought that the service should start where, in the opinion of the carriers, it could be tried out most successfully. In lieu of voting on the thirteenth proposition, the chamber advised that, in its opinion, experience with the regulation of motor-truck competition had not been sufficient to warrant the determination of a general policy; that until rail lines were able to render equal service, no restriction should be placed on the operation of motor vehicles on the highways.

(12) The Holyoke Chamber of Commerce qualified its affirmative votes on the eleventh proposition by the proviso that the word "carriers" be construed as referring to the railroads. In qualification of its affirmative votes on the twelfth proposition, the Holyoke chamber inserted a proviso that the recommendation be directed to the railroads.

(13) The Springfield Chamber of Commerce, although voting affirmatively on the fourteenth proposition, expressed doubt whether the road users should pay more than an equitable portion of the cost of maintenance.

(14) The Greenwood Chamber of Commerce, while voting as opposed to the sixth proposition, expressed the view that although believing in the principle of the committee recommendation, it favored present effort to enforce long and short haul provision by special legislation. The Greenwood chamber's affirmative votes on the eighth proposition were qualified by the proviso that there be no interference with or discontinuance of the work and authority of the Mississippi River Commission.

(15) The Montana Bankers' Association qualified its affirmative votes on the fourteenth proposition by providing that road users should pay "most of" rather than the "entire" cost of highway maintenance. (16) The Auburn Chamber of Commerce recorded its votes in the affirmative on the fourth proposition with the qualification that the committee's recommendation be not deemed as favoring an amendment at the present time to the transportation act to provide for compulsory consolidation of the railroads. The Auburn chamber's votes in favor of the seventh proposition were qualified by striking out the word "relative' as applied to freight rates, in the belief that the proposition should apply to all freight rates, both relative and straight. (17) The Buffalo Chamber of Commerce stated that it did not vote on the fourteenth proposition on the ground that the recommendation referred to a State rather than a Federal function.

(18) The Gloversville Chamber of Commerce voted against the fourteenth proposition, with the recommendation that road users pay a reasonable and equitable share of the cost of highway maintenance.

(19) The Merchants' Association of New York, in voting affirmatively on the eighth proposition, indicated its belief that the program suggested in the recommendation should be carried out by a commission composed of Army Engineers and of experts from commercial and transportation fields, thus ensuring in the commission a knowledge of the needs of commerce and of the practical transportation problems as well as of the engineering features.

(20) The Rochester Chamber of Commerce, voting affirmatively on the third proposition, indicated that this action was taken without discussing the necessity for the recapture clause or the principles involved, in the belief that the essential provisions of the transportation act should not be disturbed for the present. While voting affirmatively on the eighth proposition, the Rochester chamber recorded its belief that the proposed plan could be carried out more advantageously by a commission or board composed of Army Engineers and experts in the commercial and transportation fields.

(21) The Rome Chamber of Commerce qualified its affirmative votes on the third proposition by specify ing that the principles of recapture should be maintained until there has been further experience.

(22) The Troy Chamber of Commerce qualfied its votes in the affirmative on the second proposition by excepting all matters properly coming under the fourth proposition.

(23) The Akron Chamber of Commerce, although voting as opposed to the fourteenth proposition, expressed the opinion that common carriers such as trucking companies should pay a larger proportion of the cost of highway maintenance.

(24) The Newark (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce voted as in favor of the fourteenth proposition with the qualification that an equitable share of the cost of highway maintenance should be obtained by the levy of special taxes upon those road users alone who operate for profit.

(25) The Tiffin Chamber of Commerce qualified its vote on the sixth proposition by specifying thatrates and problems of regulation should be handled by Federal agencies only.

(26) The Philadelphia Bourse, although not voting on the third proposition through opposition to the principle of recapture, expressed the view that the principle, if adopted, should be applied to periods of not less than five years in the belief that there was at present no sufficient or effective way of making up deficiencies in realizing the full rate authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

(27) The National Pipe and Supplies Association qualified its affirmative votes on the fourteenth proposition with the condition that the recommendation refer solely to freight and express transportation. (28) The Reading Chamber of Commerce, voting affirmatively on the fourteenth proposition, qualified its action by the provision that road users should pay an equitable share of, rather than the entire, cost of highway maintenance.

(29) The Pawtucket Chamber of Commerce, in qualification of its affirmative votes on the fourteenth proposition, specified that the special taxes mentioned in the recommendation be in proportion to the use and damage done to the highways.

(30) The Providence Chamber of Commerce, in voting affirmatively on the first proposition, qualified its votes with the proviso "if it means simply cooperation." The Providence chamber's affirmative vote on the fourth proposition were recorded subject to the reservation that the changes to be brought about through new legislation should not substantially affect the underlying purposes of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

(31) The Jackson Chamber of Commerce voted in opposition on the eighth proposition, adding that it is opposed to the proposition if it means preferential rates for river cities. The affirmative votes of the Jackson chamber on the tenth proposition were qualified by the proviso that the recommendation does not give undue advantage to river cities.

(32) The Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, in lieu of voting on the ninth proposition, indicated that it was opposed to the principle of governmental ownership and control in competition with private enterprise.

(33) The West Coast Lumbermen's Association, refraining from voting on the third proposition, stated that, in its belief, while rates should be reasonable, the net revenues of railroads should be such as to encourage investment and maintain credit.

(34) The Spokane Chamber of Commerce, voting in favor of the second proposition, qualified its action with the proviso that the vote should not be construed as in any manner opposing the provisions of the Gooding bill amending the fourth section of the transportation act of 1920.

(35) The Weston Chamber of Commerce, in voting affirmatively on the third proposition, indicated that as the recapture clause was contained in the present transportation act it approved the committee's recommendation although the provision was believed to be fundamentally wrong in principle. In connec tion with its negative votes on the fourteenth proposition, the Weston chamber expressed the belief that such tax should not be levied upon the ordinary or individual user of improved highways.

ORGANIZATIONS NOT VOTING BUT FILING

The Winsted Chamber of Commerce explained that it refrained from voting on the referendum in the belief that the railroads should be permitted to work out a solution of their problems without additional legislation.

The Sycamore Chamber of Commerce expressed the belief that railroad conditions should not be disturbed in any way and that the transportation act should be given an opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness.

The Corvallis Chamber of Commerce stated that, in its opinion, no changes should be made at the present time in the Esch-Cummins law.

Hagerstown Chamber of Commerce 2--2-- 2 2.. 2.. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2-. 2.. 2

The Norfolk-Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce, voting in favor of the second proposition, qualified its action by the proviso that the Railroad Labor Board should have the authority necessary to make its decisions effective.

RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Wednesday, June 9, 1926.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. James S. Parker

(chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. OLDHAM, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. OLDHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am here in a personal capacity. I do not represent any special interest. The statement which I have prepared I prepared at the suggestion of Judge Thom, but I do not feel that in any sense of the word I represent the railway executives, of which he is the counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. OLDHAM. The statement which I have prepared and submit for your consideration is not intended to be a discussion in detail of the different provisions of the bill before you, but it deals rather with the considerations which resulted in making the provisions for further railroad consolidations so prominent a feature of the transportation act; with the progress which has already been made in carrying out the provisions of the act; with the inadequacy of the present law to carry out the intended purpose; and with the general nature of the changes in the existing law which seem to be essential to secure further progress.

It may not be out of place to state that my interest in what is commonly termed the railroad problem and my study of certain phases of the situation has covered a period of more than 10 years. For a number of years as a member and part of the time as chairman of the railroad committee of the Investment Bankers Association, I was called upon to acquaint myself with the financial aspects of the railroad situation as they existed during the years immediately preceding the war, especially from the viewpoint of credit. During the entire period of 1910-1915 the tendency of railroad earnings had been downward, railroad credit had become impaired, and confidence in railroad securities had been seriously shaken. It was generally conceded that unless the downward tendency of railroad earnings could be checked and confidence restored the time was near at hand when the railroads generally would be unable to furnish the adequate and efficient service reasonably required of them.

While opinions differed as to the causes of this situation, nevertheless conditions were considered so serious that Congress recognized the need for some constructive action and it began its investigation of the subject through the creation of the Newlands committee. With the hearings and investigations of this committee I was required to keep in touch because of my work in connection with the Investment Bankers Association.

99790-26-19

285