Mr. MANN. I did not ask about railroad men, but I asked for your opinion. Mr. BACON. I answered that question by giving the opinion of railroad traffic managers, which I fully coincide in. Mr. MANN. You agree that it does not require-you state that it does not require an expert knowledge to make freight rates? Mr. BACON. That is not exactly what I mean. Mr. MANN. Won't you tell us just what you do mean on the subject. Mr. BACON. The matter of making rates is largely a matter of experiment and of development. Rates are made by traffic managers with the view to testing their correctness and their practicability, and as changes are found to be necessary in the workings of the business they are made, one after another, until finally a rate is reached which is found to be practicable and as satisfactory as circumstances will permit. Mr. MANN. If you will permit me to direct your attention to my question, it was as to whether it requires expert knowledge in order to make this, or whether freight rates can be made at random without expert knowledge, in your judgment. Mr. BACON. They certainly can not be made at random, but I consider that a proper study of the subject on the part of one who gives his attention to it, and particularly one who is charged with the duty of regulation of railroad rates, will give him sufficient knowledge on the subject to determine whether the rates already existing are correct, are just, are reasonable, or not; and, if not, what should be substituted in their place that will be so. I do not consider that it is necessary that a man should have had experience in the traffic department of a railroad in order to form a judgment in regard to the determination of a question of that kind. Mr. MANN. Of course, I did not ask you that question, although the information is very valuable. What I wanted to know was whether it required, in your judgment, expert knowledge to make freight rates. Mr. BACON. If you mean, by expert knowledge, the knowledge of the man who has given his life to the making of rates, I should answer the question in the negative. Mr. MANN. You think it does not require any very extended knowledge to determine? Mr. BACON. You asked me if it required expert knowledge. Mr MANN. I did. Mr. BACON. And I replied to that. Mr. MANN. That it does not require expert knowledge to make freight rates? Mr. BACON. That it does not require the expert knowledge acquired by actual service as the traffic manager of a railroad. Mr. MANN. You hedge your answer so that it is valueless. In your judgment, does it require expert knowledge to determine upon the making of freight rates or not? Mr. BACON. I think I have answered that, Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. I do not think you have. Mr. BACON. I would like to hear my answer repeated, if the stenographer will give it to me. The stenographer read as follows: Mr. MANN. Of course I did not ask you that question, although the information is very valuable. What I wanted to know was whether it required, in your judgment, expert knowledge to make freight rates. Mr. BACON. If you mean by expert knowledge the knowledge of the man who has given his life to the making of rates, I should answer the question in the negative. Mr. MANN. You think it does not require any very extended knowledge to determine. Mr. BACON. You asked me if it required expert knowledge. Mr. MANN. I did. Mr. BACON. And I replied to that. Mr. MANN. That it does not require expert knowledge to make freight rates? Mr. BACON. That it does not require the expert knowledge acquired by actual service as the traffic manager of a railroad. Mr. MANN. Of course it is immaterial how the expert knowledge is acquired. Mr. BACON. I will answer further, that it does require knowledge from investigation of the subject and examination into the circumstances and conditions relating to the particular rate in question. Mr. MANN. Now, to change the subject. You testified before our committee that the Elkins bill was prepared by the general solicitor of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and that the Cooper-Quarles bill was substantially the Elkins bill. Mr. BACON. As the Elkins law was amended by agreement between the general counsel of the Pennsylvania Railroad and representatives of the executive committee of the Interstate Commerce Law Convention. Mr. MANN. You testified, as I remember, to this effect that "the bill now before you, No. 6273, comprises the provisions of the Elkins bill, revised as above stated, with the exception of the pooling and traffic association provision, which has been omitted. All the provisions contained in the present bill were contained in each of the several bills heretofore mentioned," including the Elkins bill. I understand that to be your statement? Mr. BACON. Yes, as I understand it. I will state, however, that there is one omission in the Cooper bill from the original Elkins bill, which is this: The Elkins bill provides that a rate fixed by order of the Commission should only be in force one year. That has been omitted, and there has been submitted in its place authority for the Commission to modify or change a rate that it has previously made, upon full hearing of both parties, at any time. Mr. MANN. And that was the only substantial change made? Mr. MANN. In other words, as you said in the testimony before this committee, the Cooper-Quarles bill is simply a redraft of the revised Elkins bill, eliminating the pooling section? Mr. BACON. Substantially so; yes. Mr. MANN. The Elkins bill, according to your statement, was prepared directly and drawn personally by the general counsel of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Mr. BACON. It was so stated at the time, and I believe that to have been the case. Mr. MANN. Well, do you not know whether it is the case? You were in consultation with Mr. Logan, were you not? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. H. Doc. 422, 58-3- -3 Mr. MANN. And you knew whether he drew the bill or not? Mr. BACON. It was the general understanding that he drew it, and in my negotiations with him it was so treated." Mr. MANN. Did you have any statement from him as to whether he drew it? Mr. BACON. I think that he stated to me that he drew the bill. Mr. MANN. Who is the vice-chairman of your law convention? Mr. BACON. The vice-chairman is Mr. Charles H. Seybt, of St. Louis. Mr. MANN. He is a director in the Vandalia Railroad, is he not? Mr. BACON. I understand he is; yes, sir. Mr. MANN. That is a part of the Pennsylvania Railroad system, is it not? Mr. BACON. It is a part of its system; whether it is owned or leased I do not know. I think it is leased. Mr. MANN. It is a part of the Pennsylvania system, and the Pennsylvania Railroad determines who the directors shall be? Mr. BACON. That I am not certain about; but it is understood to be under the control of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Mr. MANN. The secretary of your convention is Mr. Frank Barry? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. Mr. MANN. He is also the manager of the organization in Washington? Mr. BACON. We do not style him manager; he represents the committee in Washington. Mr. MANN. Did you not elect him as manager of the organization in Washington? Mr. BACON. No, sir; he was the secretary, elected as secretary, with the understanding, however, that he would spend his time in Washington during the sessions of Congress. Mr. MANN. The reports of your proceedings show that you elected him as manager of the organization. Mr. BACON. Will you please cite it? Mr. MANN. I will, although I do not know whether I can pick it right out at this moment or not. I will call your attention to it. Mr. BACON. He was elected by the executive committee at a meeting held after the adjournment of the convention, and he was elected as secretary. Mr. MANN. Elected as secretary by the committee? Mr. BACON. By the committee; yes, sir. Mr. MANN. I will call your attention to that report later, so that you may know what the title is that you conferred upon Mr. Barry. Mr. BACON. Whatever he may be styled it is expected that he will be in Washington during the sessions of Congress for the purpose of giving any information that may be desired in relation to proposed legislation. Mr. MANN. He occupied the same position a year ago? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. Mr. MANN. And was here in Washington in charge of the movement inaugurated by the Interstate Commerce Law Convention, which you are also representing? Mr. BACON. He was; yes, sir. Mr. MANN. Did you ever see the article which he wrote, or purported to write, published in "Freight," of April, 1904? Mr. BACON. I do not now recall it. Mr. MANN. I will call your attention to a statement in that publication [reading]: * Progress is being made slowly toward the enactment of the Cooper and Quarles bills to amend the act to regulate commerce, but it is satisfactory withal. * * Thus far, however, a majority of that, committee has refused to accord us so much as a hearing, and its chairman and several of the influential members assert that they will not consent to spend any time upon the subject, being wearied with the importunities of the public during the past few sessions of Congress for such legislation. This committee is so constituted that its majority stands as a "stone wall" to prevent any enactments which may be disapproved by the railroads of the country. Did you ever see that article? Mr. BACON. It seems to me that I have seen it. I have not a very distinct recollection about it. But, however that may be, I will say that that is a purely personal act on his part, not authorized by the committee or coming under its cognizance in any way. Mr. MANN. Do you employ a secretary who as secretary writes articles for the public press which you do not approve of? Mr. BACON. I hardly think it is competent for the committee to pass its own opinion upon the act of the secretary outside of the duties of his office. Mr. MANN. Do you approve of an article of this sort? Mr. BACON. I hardly want to express an opinion in relation to that. I do not think that has any bearing upon the merits of this legislation. Mr. MANN. If it has no bearing upon the merits of this legislation, then why do you permit your secretary to publish such a thing and why do you also publish such things? Mr. BACON. We can hardly be expected to control every movement and every utterance of our secretary. In regard to your allusion to myself I will say that I have never published anything of that kind. Mr. MANN. We will come to that later. You did not want any hearings on this Cooper-Quarles bill? Mr. BACON. We felt that the hearings held two years ago last April were ample, and we desired to expedite legislation by waiving the offering of any further testimony. We felt, however, that the railways would desire hearings, and for that reason we urged the setting of a time for hearings during the last session of Congress. Having failed in that, we have entirely withdrawn from the offering of further testimony for the purpose of expediting the legislation. Mr. MANN. You published a pamphlet purporting to contain an address delivered by you to this committee, in which you stated that you did not wish further hearings, as I remember, at the last session of Congress? Mr. BACON. At the last session of Congress we were seeking to have hearings fixed; but at the latter end of the session-in the last two weeks of the session-we requested or at least stated that we desired no hearings, and if the opposition desired them we wished to have them as speedily as possible, but that in fact we saw no occasion for further hearings on account of the previous one having been so exhaustive. Mr. MANN. The publication "Freight " you are acquainted with? Mr. BACON. I have seen it; yes, sir. Mr. MANN. You are an admirer of it, are you not? Mr. BACON. I think it is a useful publication in its way. Mr. MANN. You have warmly commended it over your signature? Mr. BACON. Yes, I have. Mr. BACON. You spoke at first as though you had hardly heard of it, and I did not know. In the publication "Freight " you wrote an article in which you stated that "Owing to the opposition of the leading members of the Interstate Commerce Committees of the two Houses to any legislation further restricting the power of the carriers to make and enforce such rates as they may see fit, it has been impossibe," etc. Do you believe that statement is true? Mr. BACON. I think it was true at the time it was written. Don't you think it was true? Mr. MANN. I know it was not true. I know that it was a libel and a slander. I know it was false, and I believe you know it was false. Mr. BACON. Well, Mr. Mann, I wish to say that I am not here to be characterized as a falsifier, and I will say, further Mr. MANN. Well, if you write articles you must take the conse quences. Mr. BACON (continuing). That where I am known that has been the last thing that has ever been attributed to me. What I said then I said conscientiously. Mr. RICHARDSON. I would be glad to know what statement you did make on the subject. Mr. BACON. Mr. Mann just read a statement from a communication which I gave, I believe, to the publisher of "Freight." Is that what it is? Mr. MANN. That is what it is from; yes. Mr. BACON. I made the statement conscientiously, and I believed it to be true, and now believe that it was true at the time. Mr. RICHARDSON. Have you examined the records of the Interstate Commerce Committee and the votes of last session? Mr. MANN. If you have not seen the records I have the records here, Mr. Richardson. It is also stated by "Freight" that in your address before the St. Louis Convention that you stated "that over three-fourths of the representatives in Congress owed their presence there to the influence of the railroads." Did you make such a statement? Mr. BACON. I saw that statement immediately after the convention. and I had no recollection of uttering it. My remarks were entirely extemporaneous at the time, and I could not recall anything of that character. Mr. MANN. You saw that statement in the November issue of "Freight," and in the December issue of "Freight" you wrote a letter telling" Freight" what a valuable publication it was, but did not consider it necessary to refute that statement? Mr. BACON. I have not been able to command time to say what I should want to in relation to everything I have seen published in connection with this legislation, and hence did not make any attempt to make any refutation. I did not suppose it was of sufficient importance to require it. Mr. MANN. I suppose you thought anybody in the country could go out and libel a member of Congress and have no attention paid to |