Three and one-third million head of hogs were motor-trucked to 15 of the principal markets in the United States in 1925, being almost 11 per cent of the total receipts. Six per cent of the sheep, more than 12 per cent of the calves, and 4.5 per cent of the cattle received at these 15 markets were hauled by motor truck.

Livestock is hauled to market by operators owning two or more trucks and engaged exclusively in hauling livestock; by operators with one or more trucks who do a general hauling business and are engaged in hauling other commodities; the small operator with possibly a single small truck handling six or eight hogs at a load, or three or four cattle; and the farmerowner hauling his own stock, and perhaps, bringing as part of the load, animals picked up at neighbors' yards to complete the load. Shipments of poultry by motor truck are increasing in number. A farmer in Minnesota stated that though there was a shrinkage of five or six pounds per crate on rail shipments, it was only about one pound when motor trucks were used. He can deliver his poultry in Minneapolis, a distance of about 50 miles, in a little over two hours by truck and is enabled to obtain the benefit of the Minneapolis market price which is usually five or six cents per pound over his local market. The advantage of motor truck transportation for shipments of livestock for short distances are: A minimum of shrinkage, quick delivery, ability to take advantage of favorable market prices, less cost for food and watering stock, and ability to make shipments of a few animals at a time.

Transportation of Milk by Motor Truck

Between 1910 and 1924, the motor truck had taken over the bulk of the shipments of milk formerly handled by electric railways and wagons and also a part of the steam railroad short-haul shipments. This is largely accounted for by the gradual crowding back of dairy farms with the growth of city suburban areas and by the shifting from rail to motor truck transportation for distances up to 50 miles because of certain advantages possessed by the motor truck. Among these advantages are: (1) Truck passes producer's gate and the truck driver acts as producer's personal agent in the city; (2) shipment by truck reduces the number of handlings from six or more to only two; (3) trucks lose fewer cans; (4) elimination of the haul from the railroad milk platform to the city milk dealer results in an estimated saving of five cents a hundredweight.

Shipping by motor truck saves time where distances are not too great and eliminates the city terminal handling and transportation costs. Approximately 90 per cent of all milk brought into the cities of Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Indianapolis is brought in by motor truck. About 20 per cent is trucked into Philadelphia, while Baltimore receives 45 per cent of its supply by truck.

Of the trucks hauling milk into these cities, 65.6 per cent operate within a radius of 29 miles and only 6.8 per cent operate over routes 50 miles and over in length. The trucks are usually operated by individuals who live in the rural sections and operate one or two trucks. Twenty cents per ton-mile is the usual rate in the 30 to 39-mile zone. For shorter distances the rates are higher. A comparison of rail and motor truck rates for hauling milk shows that truck rates are the same as rail rates or somewhat higher.

Bulk transportation of milk has developed the tank truck. The glass-lined tank truck is suited for the hauling of milk from country stations to city plants, especially when neither is located directly on a railroad and when the distance is not beyond the economic range of truck haulage. The capacities of the tanks range from about 800 to 2,000 gal.

Store-Door Delivery and Terminal Congestion

A railroad's capacity is practically limited by the capacity of its terminals. Congested terminals mean embargoes, delays and loss. Terminal operation is probably the most complex and costly of the operations of railroads. In the matter of terminal service the motor truck is now practically indispensible. Through its use the time of transit, unloading time and labor cost are reduced and equipment for line-haul service is released more quickly.

Store-door delivery is today receiving the earnest consideration of railroad executives and shippers' representatives, as well as of the commission. Store-door delivery would mean quicker and better service to the shipper with a great saving of time, elimination of terminal congestion, consolidation of freight into fewer cars, and reduction in use of stations and cars for storage.

Development of New Areas and New Business There are approximately 125,000 population centers or communities of appreciable size in the United States. Ap

273

proximately 80,000 of these have freight stations on railways, leaving about 45,000 communities without such service. It is estimated that the 45,000 communities now having no rail service constitute not less than 10 per cent of the entire population of the country. Motor transportation has given to a substantial portion of the country's population transportation facilities which have enabled them to contribute in greater measure to production, and to secure the benefits of increased production and earnings in higher wage levels, and better standards of living.

In Indiana, there are 185,000 people living within 75 miles of Indianapolis, who have no direct rail communication with that city.

In the same state there are 600 towns and villages with a population of 50 or more which have no direct rail service. Of these, 500 are served by motor truck lines and

280 have regular coach service. In California 855 towns rely entirely on motor transportation.

New farming areas have been opened with the advent of good roads and motor transportation. Farms which were near cities but without effective transportation service now produce vegetables, fruits, and berries as well as poultry and dairy products, which can be marketed expeditiously by motor truck. Shipments of farm products are also trucked to assembling points from which carload lots are shipped by rail.

Decrease of Railway Passenger Revenues

Much of the evidence of the railroads related to the loss of traffic following the advent of motor vehicle transportation. Private automobiles and motor coaches have made heavy inroads on railway passenger revenues, particularly since 1920.

During the period from 1920 to 1926, inclusive, the number of passengers carried by the Class I steam railroads in the United States decreased from 1,234,862,048 in 1920 to 860,343,019 in 1926, or 30.33 per cent. During the same period the passenger revenues decreased from $1,286,613,273 to $1,041,822,049, or 19.03 per cent.

The New York, New Haven & Hartford estimated a revenue loss of $3,327,852 per year due to motor coach competition, of which amount $1,730,277 was due to interstate coach competition. Its loss due to both the private automobile and the coach was estimated at $27,899,287, which represented about 40 per cent of the revenue.

The Denver & Rio Grande Western's local passenger traffic in Colorado decreased from 987,159 passengers in 1920 to 459,627 passengers in 1925, a loss of 53.4 per cent; the decrease in revenue was 38.5 per cent. The Erie's passenger traffic from eight primary stations in New Jersey to New York, N. Y., decreased 17 per cent in 1925. The number of

passengers carried by the Georgia & Florida decreased from 522,137 in 1920 to 173,061 in 1925.

Practically the only reason assigned for the loss of passenger traffic was the private automobile and the motor coach. Estimates of the portion of the loss that should be attributed to the private automobile varied from 50 per cent to about 90 per cent.

Coach lines have developed some new passenger business. In October, 1921, the railroads operating between Topeka, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., hauled 25,776 passengers, while in the same month in 1925, they hauled 6,551, a loss of 19,225. During October, 1925, a coach line operating between the same points hauled 38,194 passengers, or nearly twice as many as the loss shown by the railroads. In 1925, the Northern Pacific carried 372 fewer passengers between Fargo, N. D., and Jamestown, than it did in 1924, while a coach line operating between the same points showed an increase of 4,664 passengers in 1925 over 1924.

Decrease in L. C. L. Traffic

A large volume of short-haul, less-than-carload traffic formerly handled by the steam railroads, now moves in motor trucks. In 1920, Class I steam railways, handled 89,901,495 tons of lessthan-carload freight; in 1926, it dropped to 68,296,686 tons, a decrease of 24.03 per cent. The carload freight handled by these carriers increased from 64,439,482 carloads in 1920 to 71,060,904 in 1926, or 19.28 per cent.

The less-than-carload traffic handled by the Boston & Maine was 1,999,658 tons in 1921 and 1,718,838 tons in 1925, a decrease of 14 per cent. During the same period its carload tonnage increased from 18,060,925 tons in 1921 to 21,854,939 tons in 1925, about 21 per cent. If the less-than-carload traffic had increased in the same ratio as the carload tonnage, the railroad estimated its loss in less-than-carload traffic, based on the average revenue of $6.83 per ton on local, less-than-carload freight, in 1925 as compared with 1921, at approximately $4,786,000.

The reduction in 1.c.l. tonnage was generally attributed to motor truck competition although some suggestion was made that a small portion may have been taken away by express companies and parcel post.

Although the 1.c.1. tonnage in 1924 constituted 3.13 per cent of the total tonnage handled by Class I steam railroads, it was stated that 25.7 per cent of the railroads equipment was used to handle it and 32.2 per cent of the claims paid were on this 1.c.1. traffic.

Short Lines' Position Acute

It is the branch lines and short lines which feel most keenly the loss of passenger and freight revenues attributed to motor vehicle competition. While trunk lines, with an increasing volume of long-haul tonnage, may overcome the loss of shorthaul traffic, the profit of which has been disputed, it is not so with the short lines. Their situation presents one of the acute problems induced by the rapid growth of motor vehicle transportation.

A solution of the problem of the short line whose existence is threatened by motor carrier competition, but whose continuance is important to the communities served, may be in consolidation with trunk-line systems.

From 1920 to May 1, 1925, the commission authorized the abandonment of 120 lines and branches aggregating 2,439 miles. Competition with motor vehicles was cited as the primary cause of abandonment for 4.3 per cent. The effect of motor carrier competition has shown more in curtailment of train service than in actual physical abandonments. In some instances passenger service has been discontinued on certain branch or short lines; in other cases the service has been curtailed.

Where passenger trains are operated at a loss the deficit must come from freight revenues. Where the convenience of the public is not greatly affected, it is not just to compel the many to contribute in freight rates for the continuance of a service operated at a loss for the benefit of the few.

There are not many instances in which there has been a discontinuance of freight train service, but there has been some curtailment of local freight service. In some cases freight service three times a week has been substituted for daily service. Joint Rates and Through Traffic Arrangements

A small number of carriers subject to the interstate commerce act have joint rates, rates, and charges and through traffic arrangements with motor coach or motor truck lines operated either by themselves, their subsidiaries or independently.

The commission has held that motor carriers are not common carriers subject to the act, but that when services are performed by motor carriers in connection with terminal services of a common carrier subject to the act, or with the transfer of com

January 28, 1928

merce in transit at an intermediate point by such common carrier, such motor service is part of the transportation service by a carrier over which the commission has jurisdiction and such motor carrier service is under the jurisdiction of the commission. Carriers subject to the act may publish tariffs covering charges for such terminal service by motor carriers the same as charges for any other service granted by them as part of their transportation service.

The law does not prohibit either a rail or water carrier subject to the act from interchanging business with motor carriers and entering into proper arrangements to acquaint the public with the total charges for the complete movement, but such arrangements are not required by the act, and as section 6 requires that the charges for services subject to the act must be filed with the commission, it is necessaary that the statement in the tariff as to the charges of the motor carrier for its service be made separately from other charges for services subject to the act.

Section 15 (a) and Its Relation to

Operations of Motor Carriers

Section 15 (a) of the interstate commerce act provides that the commission shall prescribe aggregate rates for carriers which as a whole will, under honest, efficient and economical management and reasonable expenditure for maintenance, earn an aggregate net railway operating income equal, as nearly as may be, to fair return upon the aggregate value of the railway property of such carriers held for and used in the service of transportation. In view of these provisions, it is highly important that the practices of carriers subject to the act, in respect to their connection with any motor carrier operations and their accounting for such operations, should be uniform and definite.

The term "carrier" as defined in section 15 (a) does not include motor carriers. The revenue from and expenses of motor carrier operations performed by a subsidiary of a carrier subject to the act cannot be included in reports of its operations under the act and need not be reported to the commission, and are not considered in determinng whether the carriers are or are not earning a fair return.

Whether motor carriers in competition with rail lines are operated by a railroad directly or by a subsidiary company or independently, there is opportunity for diverting traffic to such motor carriers which may seriously affect net railway operating income. The Northland Transportation Company, a subsidiary company of the Great Northern, operating 144 coaches over about 3,000 miles of coach routes, carried a total of 1,032,288 passengers during the first six months of 1926. Much of the coach route mileage of the Northland parallels the rail lines of the Great Northern and other rail carriers. It therefore seems advisable that the earnings and expenses and investments of such motor vehicle operations of carriers subject to the interstate commerce act, directly or through subsidiary companies, should be declared by law as coming within the provisions of section 15 (a) and be regularly reported to the commission, together with statistics used in determining net railway operating income.

The present classification of accounts prescribed by the commission for steam railroads became effective on July 1, 1914, when the use of motor carrier operations by or in connection with steam railroads or electric railways was insignificant. Some confusion has been experienced by carriers subject to the act in properly accounting for motor carrier operations. A more detailed classification of accounts adapted to the peculiar problems of motor carrier operation is necessary.

Public Interest Paramount

The public interest and national welfare are fundamental in legislation affecting transportation and in the administration of regulatory laws. When there is conflict between public interest and private interest, the former is paramount and the latter must give way.

Railroads have no more economic right to any traffic than had the canals and stage coaches which opposed the construction of railways on the ground that they would take traffic already being carried on the canals and highways. But economically wasteful rivalries which marked the past should be avoided, for, in the end, the public must pay.

It is not a question of whether any particular transportation agency shall prevail or be given advantage. Ruthless, inexorable economic laws will eventually determine that, no matter what attempts may be made to impede or interfere with natural progress. The readjustment or readaptation of transportation facilities should be made with the least possible economic waste. Regulatory legislation and administration should have the single purpose of improving transportation.

It is not always easy to determine what is the public interest.

With reference to the present problem induced by the rapid growth of motor transport, it may be difficult to determine where the public interest lies if motor transport draws traffic to such an extent from existing railway or electric lines that the earnings of these lines are so impaired that they can no longer adequately serve the public. The public is interested if there should arise a question as to which agency should continue to exist when, by reason of the sparseness of traffic, both cannot do so. The public is interested in the extent and manner in which motor vehicles for hire use the highways, particularly, as related to the primary use of such highways by the public in private automobiles.

Certificates of Convenience and Necessity

The vital factor in regulatory control over motor carriers is the certificate or permit issued by the regulatory body for a specified motor operation after finding that it is in the interest of "public convenience and necessity." Certificates of convenience and necessity or permits to operate common carrier motor vehicles are now required in 41 states for carrying passengers and in 39 states for carrying goods. Certificates of convenience and necessity are required not so much with a view to safety or to the conservation of the highways, but primarily for the purpose of protecting the public interest by excluding unnecessary and wasteful competition and by determining what persons or companies are best able to serve the public.

Whether or not a certificate of convenience and necessity shall be issued for a motor carrier operation often presents a difficult economic problem. In some states an existing transportation agency or agencies in the territory to be served by the applicant for a certificate must be given consideration in determining the question of convenience and necessity; in other states no consideration is given to existing facilities. In Illinois a railroad serving the territory in question must be given first opportunity to supply any motor coach service which may be deemed necessary in the public interest.

The primary object of regulatory laws is not to establish a monopoly or guarantee the security of investments in public service corporations but to serve the interests of the public. In considering the question of whether or not a new transportation service should be permitted in competition with an established service, it is, however, economically sound and in the public interest to require that available transportation facilities be taken into consideration, as well as the effect the proposed new service would have on the existing transportation agency or agencies, the continued operation of which is important to the territory served. No preference as a matter of right or law should be given to an established transportation agency where it is a question of furnishing a different kind of service. In determining the matter the regulatory body can and should give reasonable consideration to the financial responsibility, organization, and experience of an existing transportation agency and its ability to supply adequate and permanent service.

In most states a certificate of convenience and necessity is unassignable, but usually is transferable with the consent of the issuing body. Certificates are revocable in some states for violation of statutory provisions or of the orders or rules of the regulatory body. In some states a certificate may be revoked "for good cause." Revocation of a certificate, once granted, should be permitted only under circumstances of compelling public necessity.

In some states the regulatory laws provide that a carrier actually in operation on a certain date and continuously after that date is entitled to a certificate upon filing application and showing that its operation on and prior to that date was in good faith. Such a provision is sometimes referred to as a "grandfather clause." In other states there is no such provision.

It is only fair that the interests of motor carrier operators who have pioneered and have operated their properties successfully should be protected, and the fact that an applicant for a certificate of convenience and necessity was in bona fide operation on March 2, 1925, and continuously since then and at the time application is made should be considered prima facie evidence as to the convenience and necessity of such operation. Prior to that date interstate operators, in general, had submitted to the regulation exercised by the states, and it is a fair presumption that such operations were in good faith. In view of the large number of interstate operations which sprang up in all sections of the country within a short time after that date, no such presumption can be fairly indulged in with respect to operations instituted at later dates. In Illinois, a single coach was engaged in interstate operation from 1916 to 1920, inclusive; in 1921, two; in 1922, three; and in 1923 and 1924, six. On December 31, 1925, less than a year after the decisions in the Buck and Bush cases, there were 121 coaches engaged in interstate operations which also held certificates permitting intrastate operations, and approximately 125 non-certificated coaches engaged in interstate operations in Illinois.

275

In determining the question of whether a certificate should be granted, consideration should be given to the likelihood that the proposed service will be adequate and continuous. As a condition to the exercise of rights granted in a certificate of convenience and necessity, the holder of the same should be required to undertake to furnish such additional service on the route covered by the certificate as the needs of the public might demand in the future.

Liability Insurance and Indemnity Bonds

In 39 states common carriers of passengers by motor vehicle, and in 29 states such carriers of property, are required to carry liability insurance. Two states require cargo insurance. The requirements as to liability insurance and indemnity vary somewhat in the different states. Generally, there is a provision fixing a minimum liability insurance in a certain amount, usually $5,000 for injuries to a person and $10,000 in case of death. In some states the indemnity required is based on the seating capacity of the motor coach. There is usually a provision requiring insurance against property damage. Insurance is a heavy item in operating costs. A coach operator in Ohio paid a premium of approximately $700 per year for liability insurance on a coach valued at approximately $8,000. In some states the regulatory body may exempt an operating company from carrying liability insurance in a regular insurance company if it is satisfied as to the financial strength and responsibility of the operating company.

One of the prerequisites of operations in any regulation of motor carriers should be a requirement that a policy of liability insurance or an indemnity bond sufficient in amount to insure financial responsibility of the operator should be filed with the regulatory authorities.

Need for Regulation

There are few persons, if any, familiar with the history of railroad transportation, and particularly as to its economic aspects, who will not say that the public and the railroad companies would have fared better if railway regulation had come much earlier than it did.

If it is not burdensome or unduly restrictive to have the intrastate transportation of passengers in 44 states, and of property in 33 states, by common carrier motor vehicles over the public highways conducted under regulation by state authorities, why should it be burdensome or unduly restrictive for the relatively small portion of common carrier motor-hauled commerce that moves interstate to be also under regulation similar to that prevailing in most of the states in connection with intrastate commerce? It is not consistent with sound public policy that the public, primarily entitled to use the highways, should be protected against undue and unnecessary use of such highways by common carrier motor vehicles engaged in intrastate commerce, while unlimited and unrestricted use of them may be made by common carrier motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce. Wear and damage to the highways and the hazards of transportation are the same whether a motor vehicle of a certain type is moving in interstate or in intrastate commerce.

With no law regulating interstate commerce carried over the public highways, such commerce can now be, and is, carried on by as many as desire regardless of financial responsibility and free from the slightest control or regulation as to routes, fares, schedules, public convenience and necessity, and comfort or safety of passengers. Operators engaged in such business are not required to report to any authority and, save for the police regulations of states and municipalities, are subject to none. They may operate at their pleasure and may cease operation temporarily or permanently as they choose. There is nothing to prevent them from discriminating unduly and competing unfairly. The public using such lines have no governmental agency of any description to which they may appeal in the matter of rates, routes, schedules or safety in the use of the public highways.

Highways belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the usual and ordinary way. Their use for purposes of gain is unusual and extraordinary, and generally, at least, such use may be conditioned as legislators deem proper. The public, through Congress, should say in what manner and under what conditions interstate commerce carried by common carrier motor vehicles on the public highways, may be conducted.

Carriers now subject to the interstate commerce act should be authorized by law to engage in motor carrier operations, either directly or through subsidiaries, upon obtaining certificates of convenience and necessity as provided in such law. If motor vehicle operations conducted by carriers subject to the act are placed under regulation, it is only fair that independently operated common carrier motor vehicles engaged in interstate commerce should also be under regulation.

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce by private carrier or contract carrier. It should be made clear, however, that no regulation of motor trucks operated by the owner incident to the conduct of his business is intended.

As to contract carriers, it does not seem advisable to attempt the regulation of commerce carried by this class of operator at this time when the initial step into an entirely new field of regulation of interstate commerce is to be taken. The operations of contract carriers are, to a great extent, highly specialized, and it would be extremely difficult to fix charges for such carriers or to confirm them to fixed routes without impairing the usefulness of their service, which requires the greatest flexibility. When such operations have become more standardized, and there has been time for the working of economic laws to assist in the solution of this phase of the problem, some form of regulation for carriers of this type may be advisable or necessary. There is no urgent demand or necessity in the public interest for their regulation at this time.

Regulation Should Be Simple

Regulation of common carrier motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce should, at first, be simple. The problem is a comparatively new one and it is too early to attempt the regulation of such carriers by a rigid law. Regulation should go no further than is fairly necessary to protect the public interest and improve transportation.

The transportation of passengers and property by motor vehicle is at present a distinctly local proposition, the character of which is not changed by the mere incident of crossing a state boundary line.

In the course of the hearings the administration of state regulatory laws by state commissions was commended by shippers and motor vehicle operators generally, as was also the regulation they exercised over interstate motor vehicle operations during the period while they assumed jurisdiction over such operations. If interstate commerce by common carrier motor vehicles is to be regulated at this time, original jurisdiction in the administration of such regulatory laws should, so far as possible without contravention of the commerce clause of the federal constitution, be vested in state regulatory bodies or officials, with the Interstate Commerce Commission acting as an appellate tribunal.

Power of Congress Under Commerce Clause

Can the administration of federal regulatory laws over interstate commerce by motor carriers be delegated constitutionally to state agencies by Congress? The power of Congress over interstate and foreign commerce is plenary. It is derived from Section 8 of the constitution, which provides that the Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.

The power of Congress to regulate the instrumentalities or agencies of transportation grows out of its power to regulate commerce and is not limited to commerce by a common carrier, but extends to all commerce, whether by common carrier, private carrier, or by an individual for his own purposes. Congress may regulate interstate commerce by any proper and constitutional means. State officers, unless prohibited by the constitution or laws of the state, may be authorized by federal statutes to perform duties conferred by a federal statute, but they cannot be compelled to perform such duties.

Congress undoubtedly has the right to delegate to state agencies the administration of federal statutes, and it seems reasonably free from doubt that it can do so in the administration of laws regulating interstate commerce, particularly if provision is made for an appeal from the action of such agencies to a federal tribunal.

Vesting of Jurisdiction

In view of the predominantly local character of motor transportation, Congress should vest in state regulatory bodies original jurisdiction in the regulation of interstate commerce by common carrier motor vehicles operating on the public highways within general lines marked out by the statute. In general, the plan of administration, in respect to the designation of the boards and the formation of joint boards composed of representatives of two or more state boards or of the Interstate Commerce Commission, whenever it becomes necessary for it to act for a state board, along the lines set forth in the Cummins-Parker and Denison bills should be followed. Right of appeal from the action of any state board or joint board to the Interstate Commerce Commission should be preserved.

Co-operation between state authorities and the Interstate Commerce Commission in matters pertaining to common carrier regulation would not be a new proposition. Section 13 of the interstate commerce act authorized co-operation and

January 28, 1928

conference between state commissions and the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to the relationship between rate structures and practces of carriers engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce. Arrangements have been devised and put into effect under which this is accomplished. Each body retains jurisdiction in its own sphere but reaches its conclusions on a common record made at a joint hearing, and after conference.

A certificate of convenience and necessity and the filing of a policy of public liability insurance or indemnity bond which will give assurance that there is adequate protection for the responsibility assumed in the transportation of passengers or property by motor carriers should be prerequisities to common carrier operation.

In the matter of rates, service, accounts, reports and rules and regulations governing motor vehicle operations and service, wide discretion should be vested in the regulatory authorities. They should have the right to exempt motor vehicle operators from keeping such accounts or making reports where circumstances and the public interest justify such course, as in the case of small operators who are performing a valuable service in the communities served but who might not be able to continue operations on account of the labor and expense necessary to comply with such regulation. They should also be authorized to exempt small operators or others from publishing rates, fares, or charges where it is deemed that circumstances of the particular case and public interest warrant such action.

There should be a wise and farsighted co-ordination of all existing transportation agencies-land, water and air. The nation's transportation machine must be kept at its highest efficiency so as to advance the prosperity of the country and promote the happiness and welfare of its citizens in peace, and in order that it may be prepared to respond as a tremendous factor in the national defense in time of war.

Conclusions

The examiners' conclusions follow in full:

1. Transportation of passengers and property by motor vehicles operating over the public highways is a well established, useful, and permanent factor in the Nation's transportation system.

2. Steam railroads and electric railways are engaging more and more extensively, either directly or through subsidiaries, in motor vehicle transportation as supplementary to their rail operations to replace train operations, or as feeders or distributing agencies.

3. Carriers now subject to the act should be authorized by law to engage in motor vehicle service over the public highways, directly or through subsidiaries, upon obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity as provided in such law.

4. The revenues, expenses, and investments and other statistics incident to motor vehicle operations by carriers now subject to the act, either directly or through subsidiaries, should be required to be regularly reported to the Commission and be declared by law as coming within the provisions of section 15a of the interstate commerce act in determining net railway operating income under the provisions of that act.

5. A more detailed classification of accounts adapted to the peculiar problems arising from motor carrier operations by carriers subject to the interstate commerce act, directly or through subsidiaries, should be adopted.

6. Carriers subject to the interstate commerce act and their motor carrier operations should be authorized by law to participate in joint rates and through routes with common carrier motor bus and motor truck lines holding certificates of convenience and necessity from some regulatory body in substantially the same manner as they are now authorized to do with carriers now subject to the act.

7. The problem of regulating motor vehicle operations in interstate commerce is a comparatively new one, and it is too early to attempt regulation by a rigid law. It seems wise, however, to lay down a few principles governing such operations at this time.

8. The law should provide for the regulation of interstate commerce by motor vehicles operated as common carriers of passengers and property over public highways.

9. Regulation should not include motor vehicles operated by the owners incidently to the conduct of their business.

10. The motor vehicle operations of so-called "contract carriers" are not sufficiently standardized to make the regulation of such operations in interstate commerce advisable at this time.

11. Motor carriers operating in interstate commerce as common carriers should be classified: (1) Those operating between fixed termini or over a regular route; (2) all other common carriers.

12. Original jurisdiction in the administration of regulation

over motor vehicles operating in interstate or foreign commerce as common carriers over the public highways should be vested in such State regulatory bodies as notify the Interstate Commerce Commission that they will act. The Interstate Commerce Commission should be delegated to act with original jurisdiction whenever a State board fails to notify the Commission of its acceptance of the delegation of authority to act under the Federal statute, and until such notice is received. Joint boards composed of two or more State boards, or representatives of such State boards and of the Interstate Commerce Commission, when acting for a State board, should be authorized to act where the commerce is carried on in two or more States.

13. The right of any party to appeal from the action of a State board or a joint board to the Interstate Commerce Commission should be preserved.

14. Legislation for the regulation of motor vehicles operating as common carriers over the public highways should provide as prerequisites to operation:

(1) Certificate of convenience and necessity;

(2) Liability insurance or indemnity bond or satisfactory assurance of financial responsibility which will insure adequate protection for the responsibility assumed in the transportation of passengers or property. 15. The law should provide that in determining whether or not public convenience and necessity require the granting of a certificate to operate, reasonable consideration, among other pertinent matters, should be given to available transportation service by any other existing transportation agency operating in the same territory, and to the effect which the proposed service may have upon any such existing transportation agency, the continued operation of which is important to the community served by it.

16. The law should provide that the fact that an applicant for a certificate of convenience and necessity was in bona fide operation on March 2, 1925, and continuously since then and at the time application is made shall be considered prima facie evidence as to the convenience and necessity of such operation. 17. Transfer of certificates of convenience and necessity should be permitted with the approval of the issuing board. Revocation of a certificate should only be permitted under circumstances of compelling public necessity.

18. As a condition to the exercise of rights granted with a certificate of convenience and necessity, the holder of the same should be required to undertake to furnish such additional service as the needs of the public might demand in the future.

19. The law should require that rates be just, reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory, and not unduly preferential or unduly prejudicial.

20. Provision should be made for the filing of complaints against rates, practices, or service of motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce over the public highways. The procedure upon hearing of such complaints should be substantially the same as the procedure at hearings upon complaints against steam railroads or electric railways.

21. The regulatory boards should be vested with wide discretion in the administration of the law, particularly with respect to rates, fares, and charges, accounting and filing reports; and in the making of rules and regulations for the regulation of motor vehicle operations and service.

22. Broad discretionary powers should be given to the regulatory boards in the matter of exempting interstate motor vehicle operations from any of the provisions of the law if such exemption would be in the public interest, as in the case of small operators who are giving transportation service important to the communities served, but who might be unable to continue operations if required to comply with all regulatory provisions on account of the additional expense involved.

23. Brokerage in transportation of passengers for hire in interstate commerce by motor vehicles operated by a person or company not holding a certificate of convenience and necessity from a regulatory body covering such service should be prohibited.

24. The issuance, interchange, or exchange of free passes and free transportation by common carrier, motor carriers operating over the public highways in interstate commerce should be prohibited, except in substantially the same manner and to the same extent as provided for in the case of common carriers now subject to the interstate commerce act.

25. Federal legislation for the regulation of commerce by motor vehicles should include the transportation of passengers or property to or from a foreign country, but only so far as such transportation takes place within the United States, in substantially the same manner and to the same extent as inter

state commerce.

26. The transportation of explosives and inflammables by motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited

277

by the Transportation of Explosives Act, except and in the manner provided therein.

27. The provisions of the Bills of Lading Act are applicable to motor carriers operating in interstate or foreign commerce. 28. The provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act relating to the business and transactions of common carriers are applicable to the business and transactions of motor carriers operating as common carriers in interstate or foreign commerce.

29. Public policy demands the fostering and preserving in full vigor motor vehicle transportation as well as rail and water transportation. Section 500 of Transportation Act, 1920, should be amended to include motor vehicle transportation in the declaration of policy there made.

30. There should be a wise, farsighted, and definite co-ordination of all existing transportation agencies-land, water, and air.

Motor Transport Division

N

Has Organization Meeting

INETY-TWO officers representing 76 railways attended the first meeting of the Motor Transport Division of the American Railway Association at Chicago on January 25. No fixed program had been arranged by the temporary general committee and the meeting was thrown open to discussion of subjects to be considered by the division following the opening business, which consisted of the election of officers and appointment of a permanent general committee. A. P. Russell, temporary general chairman of the Motor Transport Division and former chairman of the Railroad Motor Transport Conference, was elected chairman of the division. Mr. Russell is vice-president of the New York, New Haven & Hartford and president of the New England Transportation Company. Other officers elected were as follows: Vice-chairman, Motor Coach Section, T. B. Wilson, vice-president and manager, Southern Pacific Motor Transport Company; vicechairman, Motor Truck Section, G. C. Woodruff, assistant freight traffic manager, New York Central; Secretary, George M. Campbell. The office of vicechairman in charge of the Rail Motor Car Section was not filled.

The following were elected members of the General Committee: J. G. Drew, vice-president, Missouri Pacific; H. F. Fritch, passenger traffic manager, Boston & Maine, and president, Boston & Maine Transportation Company; A. Hatton, general superintendent of transportation, Canadian Pacific; C. S. Lake, special assistant to president, Chesapeake & Ohio; G. W. Lupton, assistant to vice-president, Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe; R. K. Stackhouse, general superintendent, stations, transfers and motor service, Pennsylvania; and R. N. Van Doren, vicepresident and general counsel, Chicago & North

western.

To Meet Three Times Each Year

Meetings of the Motor Transport Division will be held three times annually-in June, October and February. The next meeting will be held at Atlantic City, N. J., at the same time as the meeting of the Mechanical Division. The officers elected at the meeting this week will hold office until the October meeting of the division, which will be known as the annual meeting. It was decided to appoint a joint committee with the Mechanical Division in connection with studies made on motor transport equipment.