to handle in the first place on our inbound movement, we have no qualms about paying him less than we know he can afford to haul it for.

Mr. ROGERS. Although you are against the principle, you participate in giving gypsies business.

Mr. GREENBERG. We are just forced to do that by competition, of course. In other words, if nobody else was using gypsies, neither would we.

Mr. ROGERS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, gentlemen? Mr. Heselton. Mr. HESELTON. I think in a portion of your statement that you may not have read as to the problem of lack of insurance, you say that the gypsy does not carry liability insurance. I assume that is a fairly heavy item in the operation of a large truck.

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, it is. It is quite a big item. Furthermore, I might state that very, very few individual owners of trucks or the so-called gypsies can get public personal liability and property damage insurance.

Mr. HESELTON. Did you say very few could get it?

Mr. GREENBERG. That is right. As a matter of fact, there are regulated motor carriers that have trouble getting that type of insurance because of their experience. The payment of insurance premium is based on the carrier's experience. The insurance companies can keep track of our experience. They can follow our trucks down the line. As a matter of fact, they have a regular inspection system. They follow our trucks every so often and report to us. They cannot follow these gypsy operators.

Mr. HESELTON. That being true, it would seem to be in the public interest in having these large trucks that operate with large loads to be adequately insured so that if there is an accident, the public is protected.

Mr. GREENBERG. That is correct. I would like to amplify that a little further by saying that at the present time some of the States are attempting to cause or force this type of operators to carry insurance, but they have not been able to enforce to any great extent. About the only State that I know of that has been able to do something about it is Michigan. There is little or no gypsy operation in the State of Michigan.

I might also state this, that the States have found that they cannot only do anything about the insurance, but they cannot even force them to buy license plates. For instance, in the State of Illinois, a great many of these gypsy operators live in the State of Illinois. They presumably would buy their license plates in the State in which they live, and the State from which they operate, but the biggest majority of them will buy their license plates in Indiana because of the fact that the Indiana plates are cheaper.

Mr. HESELTON. Is it a fact that most of this so-called gypsy operation is interstate rather than intrastate?

Mr. GREENBERG. It is both, but most of it is interstate.

Mr. HESELTON. That being true, suppose consideration could be given to Congress deciding on whether it was a good policy to require that all interstate operation should carry adequate insurance.

Mr. GREENBERG. As a matter of fact, in my statement I made that suggestion. I passed over a lot of things I have suggested in the

statement. I pointed out that the public is at the mercy of the gypsy operator or owner who does not have any insurance when he is not in the employ of the carrier, with the result that if he has an accident, you just try to collect. Even if you get a court judgment, you cannot collect. I think it is about time that the public is taken care of in some manner. The States have not been able to do it.

Mr. HESELTON. Have you made that recommendation to the Interstate Commerce Commission?

Mr. GREENBERG. The Interstate Commerce Commission would be helpless to do that, sir, on the individual owner-operators unless at the time they were in the employ of a motor carrier.

Mr. HESELTON. You misunderstand me. Have you made that sort of recommendation to the Interstate Commerce Commission for their consideration?

Mr. GREENBERG. No. They cannot even consider it. That would be a matter for Congress.

Mr. HESELTON. I disagree with you. They can consider it. They have a duty to report recommendations to this committee. Have you ever raised the question before the Interstate Commerce Commission? Mr. GREENBERG. They are well aware of that situation, Mr. Heselton.

Mr. HESELTON. How long have they been aware of it?

Mr. GREENBERG. As far as I am concerned, I think they have probably been aware of it since 1940.

Mr. HESELTON. That is a long period.

Mr. GREENBERG. That is when they started first to make this investigation.

Mr. HESELTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARRIS. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. This is not repetitious and I do not believe it has been asked before. Among the trucking industry then is there an industry code of ethics, so to speak?

Mr. GREENBERG. I think to the extent that there are certain methods of operations and certain understandings which is known by the public, of course, that are arrived at through public meetings and through the trucking associations, to that extent we have a certain amount of ethics.

Mr. HARRIS. You have no published code of ethics like some other industries have?

Mr. GREENBERG. That is right, not that I know of, at least.
Mr. HARRIS. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Greenberg, many years ago, I notice from your statement the Werner Transportation Co. was the successor to the Werner Poultry Co. I hope it will tinge my questions with a little interest to you that I once represented them in a lawsuit.

Mr. GREENBERG. No kidding.

Mr. O'HARA. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Greenberg. How many carriers that you represent are certified carriers?

Mr. GREENBERG. They are all certified carriers.

Mr. O'HARA. How many are there?

Mr. GREENBERG. Twenty-four, of which three of them are in opposition to us and in favor of the bill.

Mr. O'HARA. There are three in favor and the others opposed?
Mr. GREENBERG. Twenty-one are opposed.

The CHAIRMAN. Who will speak on behalf of the three?

Mr. GREENBERG. They are not here.

May I answer your question, Mr. Chairman, after Mr. O'Hara is through?

Mr. O'HARA. You may answer it right now, if you wish.

Mr. GREENBERG. I was going to bring that question out. I think there is a question in the minds of the committee as to why there are only a few motor carriers present from the opponents as well as the proponents.

The CHAIRMAN. I was not aware that anybody was absent.

Mr. GREENBERG. The question was asked Tuesday of Mr. Ellis as to how come there was only such a small number of carriers represented. I would like to point out this, that the reason that there are only a few carriers here, and those are more or less associations, is due to the fact that the American Trucking Association which carried the matter clear to the Supreme Court has had a change of position, and the executive secretary of that association has instructed its counsel and legal staff to stay out of this controversy entirely.

In other words, you do not see the American Trucking Association, which is comprised of various factions, both pro and con, on this question, here. The same thing is true for the State associations. They are in the same position as the national association. They cannot take sides. The result is that either a carrier has to come here by himself and most of them figure that is too costly and they figure their little one voice is not going to be heard anyway, or else it has to be done by the small associations for which it happens that in the Chicago area there are 4 or 5 of us, and 3 of us are here. That is why you do not have many motor carriers present.

I would like to advise you that in the poll that we took before the S. 50 hearing, we found that about 70 percent of the carriers to whom a questionnaire was sent out and they answered, that they were opposed to wide-open leasing. They were in favor of a 30-day minimum. The CHAIRMAN. You go right ahead with Mr. O'Hara. I did not know I was going to take so much of his time.

Mr. O'HARA. This is interesting to me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREENBERG. Our three conferences have sent out a questionnaire on a form which I will submit to the clerk to all State associations asking them to submit a poll to all of their members and to advise us the result of that poll. I should like to ask leave of the committee to present you with all of the information we gathered in that poll so that you will know how the industry stands.

The CHAIRMAN. You may present it and we will look it over. (The information will be filed with the committee.)

Mr. O'HARA. Even as to the certified carriers, they are wondering when the action is going to fall on them from the ICC?

Mr. GREENBERG. It has fallen on us. We have been fined for violation of the hours of service due to the fact that some of our drivers and some of our so-called gypsy operators we hired for one trip have been caught in falsifying their logs. That is a violation of which we unknowingly violated a law. I do not think there are any of the motor carriers that would knowingly violate the law if they could help it.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Greenberg, you say of your association three oppose your position that you have expressed today. Have you expressed in your statement their position with reference to this legisÎation?

Mr. GREENBERG. No; I have not.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you not think you had a duty to present their views as well as the views of the majority?

Mr. GREENBERG. I will tell you why. The biggest one is Motor Cargo, of Akron, Ohio, and they were represented here by Mr. Ellis, and their view was well presented here.

Mr. O'HARA. How many of the carriers in your group have rates and tariffs on file with the Commission?

Mr. GREENBERG. All of us.

Mr. O'HARA. Your operations are specifically exempt under the rules of MC-43 and therefore I would like to ask you this question: How does this legislation affect you?

Mr. GREENBERG. You say our operation was exempt?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Is that not true?

Mr. GREENBERG. No. You are talking about the hauling of exempt commodities.

Mr. O'HARA. Yes.

Mr. GREENBERG. The only exempt commodities that we would be able to haul in our operation would be eggs. We might be able to haul fresh fruits and vegetables, but, as you know, there is very little of that out of Minnesota. The only thing that moves in any quantity from the Minnesota area is eggs in the shell.

Mr. O'HARA. There is poultry, of course.

Mr. GREENBERG. Poultry is not exempt unless it is shipped alive, and there is no movement of live poultry.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you propose that agricultural exemptions be eliminated?

Mr. GREENBERG. I think I brought it out in my statement.

Mr. O'HARA. I am sorry. I was late getting here, Mr. Greenberg. If you covered it, disregard my question.

Mr. GREENBERG. It is pretty much in my statement if you will read the statement.

Mr. O'HARA. Before I get to read it, I would like to know the answer. Mr. GREENBERG. I hope you read it. I will give you the answer. Your question was whether or not we are in favor of removing the exemption?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes.

Mr. GREENBERG. To this extent we would be in favor of removing the exemption. We do not think that the exemption was intended to apply to anybody but a producer. As a matter of fact, for approximately 5 years after the act went into effect, very few people though about it in any other manner except that it applied to the producer. There were very, very few haulers of exempted commodities until about 1940 or 1941, when the Interstate Commerce Commission first noticed what was going on and started their investigation. So my answer is that if the movement is by an owner of the merchandise of an exempt commodity, if he has his own truck, I say to him he can go any place in the country he wants to go.

Mr. O'HARA. Let me ask you this: You are familiar with the farm country out there in Minnesota and Wisconsin for many years. I am very curious about the operations of the certified carriers.

Mr. GREENBERG. I grew up in that country, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. You are hauling, we will say, from Chicago, not farm products, but merchandise, and you have a load for a little town 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 mles off the highway on a rather poor road. Do you haul that over there?

Mr. GREENBERG. We have an operation that takes us over mostly main routes. As you probably know, in Minnesota you do not have too many backward roads until you get clear up into northern Minnesota, and western. We operate in the southern portion of Minnesota. Mr. O'HARA. I have seen hundreds of your trucks in operation. Mr. GREENBERG. We service practically every point along the main routes. We serve three routes in Minnesota every day. We hit every little point regardless of the size of the shipment that might go to that point. We do not stop to deliver to every one of those consignees. Mr. O'HARA. That is what I am getting at. How do you deliver? Mr. GREENBERG. We drop it off at an agent. That agent probably years ago used to have to depend on the railroads for his livelihood in that he would go to the railroad depot, pick up the shipments, and deliver them to the local people. Now we deliver those shipments to him at his platform and he makes the deliveries for us. Mr. O'HARA. Is he a certified carrier?

Mr. GREENBERG. No; he does not have to be. He is our agent.
Mr. O'HARA. He is a gypsy, then?

Mr. GREENBERG. No; he stays right in his hometown. He works not only for us, but he also makes local pickup and delivery right in his city.

Mr. O'HARA. How can he do that. If you carry interstate commerce out there, is he not carrying interstate commerce then? Mr. GREENBEG. As our agent he can do that.

Mr. O'HARA. Just what is the agency?

Mr. GREENBERG. We can appoint any agent to do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves.

Mr. O'HARA. That does not give him permission to operate an unlicensed truck, does it?

Mr. GREENBERG. That is right; for instance, we have an agent in Rochester, Minn. That agent not only handles our deliveries and pickups, but will also pick up and make deliveries for local people in that town, or maybe he will take a carload of traffic and distribute it to the local people. While he is working for us and making deliveries for us, he is our agent. He is doing exactly what we could do. We simply are letting him do that. That is perfectly legal. Mr. O'HARA. That is what the gypsy does, is it not?

Mr. GREENBERG. No. The gypsy is a little different situation. The gypsy operates over the highway.

Mr. O'HARA. So does your agent.

Mr. GREENBERG. No, he does not. He only operates in the city of Chicago. Take it a little further from there. If our agent at Rochester, and by the way, I have a situation like that with an agent at Faribault, takes it upon himself to take a load of turkeys, for instance, from Faribault to New York, he then becomes a gypsy operator.