have been leased at a price arranged between the two parties and for a period of time agreed to by both parties.

We seek the retention of this flexibility of the equipment in order that we may maintain the economical operation of this fleet of trucks now placed at 7 million, without whose services it would not be possible to even move the supplies which are hauled by rail from the farm to the point where they are placed on rail, nor to move them at destination from rail carrier terminals to the distributor and retailer and to the consumer for use.

As I have emphasized, the matter was before Congress for 10 years and was most skillfully handled by Congress after being carefully studied by them and one of the finest minds in transportation; namely, Joseph B. Eastman. The development to date has justified the position taken.

Economies which have been developed have been passed on to the consumer, and with the food bill of today and the attitude of the public to it, it does not seem to be an opportune time to increase the costs of moving these commodities to the consumer. An increase in cost will assuredly be met if the present bill is not enacted into law, for any attempt to fix the time for which a lease must be made will merely make that particular vehicle so much less flexible. If held away from its arranged duties for 30 days, the crops, which should have moved in that time, will not be in condition to move.

POINT VIII. FLEXIBILITY ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER DISTRIBUTION

Operating under the agricultural exemption of section 203 (b) (6), these trucks are free to move from one section of the United States to another as crops are ready for harvest and distribution to the consuming centers. Unlike the production of a steel mill, the grower cannot set a specific day and date on which his fruits or vegetables will mature and be ready for movement to market, nor does he know much in advance of the shipping date where the demand for his commodities will be.

In other words, a truck operator may, during the course of a year, haul winter vegetables and citrus from Florida, peaches from Georgia, strawberries from the Carolinas, potatoes from the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, apples from New Jersey, cranberries from Massachusetts, and seed potatoes from Maine. In the Western States, the dependence on the truck is equally marked-Los Angeles may receive peaches and apples from Washington or Idaho, Texas may draw on Colorado, and in the Central States the movement from Michigan to points south and of vegetables from Texas and the New Orleans area northward constitute a well-established procedure, nor does it stop at the Canadian border. The area serviced is continental.

The flexibility provided by the agricultural exemption enables growers and shippers to have available to them the necessary equipment for moving their commodities to whatever market in the country has a demand for them on the day they are ready to ship, but again I repeat, without the return haul, the cost would be prohibitive, and should the truck have to be leased for longer than the trip, its availability when and where needed would be lost.

war.

POINT IX. THE USE OF THE TRUCK IN DEFENSE

We recognize that national defense is now a major problem in our economy. We recognize that "when a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." We recognize that the rails must be maintained, if we are to be defended. We recognize that the roads and the trucks are equally important. We recognize that it is imperative to subsidize some shipping in order to have the transport necessary under the American flag to move the requirements for But, we also recognize that food is the first line of defense, and if its production is not maintained and we rely on some other source than our own, then we may be in as serious straits as was England. Such is not to be permitted. We ask then that the trucks be left free to operate as they now are so that they may maintain themselves in position to be available for defense for it may be vital. When all is said and done, the last item in defense is the Infantry. The Infantry or any other department cannot function without vast supplies, and the trucks cannot be lost sight of as a factor in defense any more than the rails can be lost sight of. We recognize that the Air Force cannot be of service unless there are land facilities in position to function to keep supplies where they need to be. The cabs saved Paris in World War I. A strong and available supply of trucks and men trained in the operation, well distributed in rural areas, should be encouraged and developed, not restricted.

POINT X. REFRIGERATOR EQUIPMENT AND POPULATION

In 1924 and again in 1927 I compiled data as to the refrigerator cars of the United States with regard to their serviceability, their bunker capacity, their construction, their date of building, and all matters conversant with them, and since that time, their number has been markedly curtailed.

Instead of 143,921 freight and express refrigerator cars shown in the book Description of Freight and Express Refrigerator Cars in the United States Not Including Packer's Cars, Freight Refrigerator as of July 1, 1926, Express Refrigerator as of January 1, 1927, which I compiled from data filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission under the Commission's order, we now have approximately 104,885 cars. And instead of 116 million people we now serve 157 million. And in the case of fruits and vegetables, in one form and another, a considerably increased amount per year.

POINT XI. THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE TRUCK A HEALTH FACTOR

The flexibility of the truck, the speed of the truck, the ability to serve the public with fresh fruits and fresh vegetables, delivering them in many cases in half the time it would take by rail, has been an important factor in developing the health and well being of the people of the United States so that in maintaining this flexibility, you would be serving the public welfare.

We seek to retain the flexibility of the truck because it is sound economy and for the public well-being.

SUMMARY

The population is now 157 million, 135 percent of what it was in 1927, and the daily per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables has increased.

The supply of refrigerator cars is now 70 percent of what it was in 1927, and has not shown ability to move more than 50 percent of our present ordinary volume of fruits and vegetables and the number of refrigerator cars is declining. With the trucks moving 50 percent of the load, there are not now enough refrigerator cars to move the other 50 percent of the present food requirement at peak movement.

There are not enough trucks in the contract carrier and common carrier groups to move peak loads of perishables, nor are they in sufficiently flexible position to move agricultural commodities from sources of supply to consuming centers or even loading points.

The forced leasing of essential equipment for 30 days will wreck the essential flexibility of movement of such equipment to the detriment of our economy. The inability to lease a truck for a return trip will markedly increase the costs of food, may deprive the grower of financial returns to which he is entitled, and deprive the public of the benefit of fruits and vegetables in their diet. We seek to provide that nothing in this part shall be construed to authorize the Commission

(1) to regulate the duration of a lease;

(2) to regulate the duration of any contract;

(3) to regulate the duration of any other arrangement;

(4) to regulate the amount of compensation to be paid for the use of any motor vehicle by a motor carrier in providing transportation;

and ask that this provision be incorporated in section 202 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as stated at the beginning.

Mr. FRASER. For the past 65 years I have been a farmer. I have been a farmer either as a laborer or an owner. I appear for those who pay the freight, and I appear on behalf of those who are the consumers as well as the producers because we have got to have the consumer buying our commodity at a price he can pay.

I have been interested in the transportation problem for the last 40 years. As a case in point, on the refrigerator car supply for the United States, in 1942 I indexed the 142,000 cars, as to their condition, their icing capacity and everything else that was required, and that was used in court procedure.

There were 142,000 then. There are 105,000 today. 70 percent of the refrigerator car supply for 135 percent of the people.

In spite of the statements that have been made that there is ability to pick up the load at peak times, I know it is not so. I know we are under controls and regulations and that has been a factor in our problem since 1916. I have been very closely connected with our whole transportation system from that time.

I appeared originally on this bill. I worked on it from the years 1926 to 1935, when the question was raised before the Commission as to who was responsible for the particular provisions and the counsel who I was with was asked who did it, and brought it in, and he said he knew. The question was, was the individual in the room and he said he was. So far as the Commission was concerned, they recognized that I did considerable work in securing the three agricultural exemptions.

To my thinking 4 (a), which applies to the farmers is of very limited value. The farms of the United States as you will see from the record I have given you, 78 percent of them do not have more than $5,000 income. They cannot buy a truck. They cannot operate a truck. One hundred and five thousand farms have $5,300,000 of a capacity of income above $25,000. They can. But the in-between group must be served, and the law was written with the idea that the man who stood in the place of the farmer would service him with the truck, and have all the ability of the private owned truck.

The provisions were to apply to the private owner truck and carried on through to the farm truck.

Mr. Chairman, we have made economies. Those economies are being passed on to the public. The freedom from price-fixing was a very important provision. Mr. Eastman approved it. He recommended it in 1934. The ICC approved it. The Congress enacted it. We seek to maintain it because it is a sound procedure in the economy of the United States.

When we passed the legislation in 1935, it was claimed that we had 3 million trucks under this provision. Today it is claimed we have 7 million. The point we would like to emphasize is carried in the summary, and that is that it is economical in our structure. The population is now 157 million. In 1926 when I compiled this data it was 116 million. The car supply is now only 70 percent of what it was. It was 142,000. Today it is less than 105,000. If it was not for the truck, we could not move our fruits and vegetables, and it is for fruits and vegetables that I appear in particular.

The fruit and vegetable supply which has been so important in maintaining the health of the United States and the people of the United States is due to the facility and flexibility of the truck. We seek to maintain the flexibility.

I want to make this point. If a truck is away for 30 days and the crops are ripening and we lose the time, then not only is the public going to lose, but the farmer is going to lose, and the whole structure may fall apart. We must maintain that flexibility which is now established in our economy unless we impair our whole economic structure.

As for leasing equipment, Mr. Chairman, we had a senatorial investigation some years ago in which I was interested, and they brought out that the Pennsylvania Railroad is handled entirely on leasing. The Pennsylvania railroad leased the tracks from the Pennsylvania

company and they operate with leased equipment, so that the leasing of equipment, and even the leasing of the tracks is nothing new in our transportation system. That has been recognized.

The striking thing is that under those conditions where there is individual responsibility thrown on someone to maintain the equipment, that railroad has been able to maintain a profit. We consider that vital.

The points then are, the inability of the truck for a return trip will increase the cost of food. It may deprive the grower of his market and his financial returns, and it will deprive the public of the benefit of the fruits and vegetables they now have. So we seek, Mr. Chairman, that nothing in this shall authorize the commission to regulate the duration of a lease, to regulate the duration of any contract, to regulate the duration of any other arrangement, nor to regulate the amount of compensation to be paid for the use of any motor vehicle by a motor carrier in providing transportation.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I said I would talk 4 minutes. I have now been appearing before your honorable committee for many years-I have worked here since 1905 on legislative matters-so I appreciate time. I thank you very much, because it is an onerous task which you have to hold these hearings, and I appreciate the amount of patience which is involved. I thank you for your consideration.

If there is any question I can answer, I will be glad to do so. Otherwise, I will surrender at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fraser, none of us including our distinguished member from Ohio has been here since 1905, but we do realize that you have been before this committee on many occasions, and you have always made a very real and worthwhile contribution to the thought of the committee in presenting your views with respect to legislation that was under consideration by the committee. We hope that you will live many more years, and that you can appear whenever the occasion requires. You are always welcome.

Mr. FRASER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to explain to Mr. Fraser that the reason that some members left is that there was a call from the House. I would not like him to feel that we were not interested in what he was saying. His full statement will be made a part of the record.

So I will not overlook it, I wish to refer at this time to a statement in the form of a telegram that has been received from Mr. H. D. Abbott, administrator, Division of Highway Taxes, California State Board of Equalization, which I take by quick reading would seem to be against the bill. It will be inserted in the record at the point where the opponents of the bill have introduced their statements.

Gentlemen, the bell just rang for a yea and nay bill vote before the House that will necessitate our going. I will return and if there are any other members of the committee that are willing to do so at this late hour when the rollcall is over, I will be pleased if they would do likewise, and if you folks who are here will be kind enough to remain until I come back, we will see what can be done about disposing of the bill and what arrangements we should make. I will be back inside of 20 or 30 minutes, as soon as my name is reached.

(A recess was taken for 15 minutes.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The next witness is Mr. Wells.

STATEMENT OF MAXWELL W. WELLS, OF MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, ORLANDO, FLA.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder in view of the shortness of the time if it would be permissible for me to file my prepared statement and supplement it with an additional statement after my return to the office for this reason: I am the attorney who filed the brief for the Florida citrus industry in MC-43 to which the railroads made reference this morning. I would like file a supplemental statement, if I may, with the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. You certainly may. I am perfectly willing and the committee is for you to make some statement now and still supplement it. We would like to know what is in your mind.

Mr. WELLS. I would be happy to proceed if you desire.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, for a few minutes, to point out to us just what your brief covers. In other words, if I were in your position, I would say I would like to call attention of the committee to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 points, whatever you have in your mind, and a few words with respect to the supplement you expect to file. You will be permitted to put your entire statement and supplement into the record.

Mr. WELLS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to get some idea of what thoughts you had.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, first, I will refer very briefly to reference made by railroad counsel this morning, and which was quite surprising to me, in the thought that was suggested that the 30-day minimum-leasing requirement of the rule in MC-43 did not affect the Florida citrus industry at all.

Reference was made there to the fact that there is a seasonal operation, which is true. But there is a complete misinterpretation as to what that means because throughout the record in MC-43-and I attended the entire proceeding except the hearing in St. Louis and participated in all of the arguments-there was never to my knowledge any representation by anyone that there had ever been a lease of 30 days' duration of any of the trucks that hauled Florida citrus fruit.

The only lease of which I have any knowledge, either having participated in the proceeding or my knowledge of the Florida citrus industry over the past 17 years, is the trip lease southbound, and the trip lease southbound could not function in any respect whatever under the 30-day limitation imposed by the Commission's rules.

I shall try to elaborate a little more fully and refer to the two briefs that were filed by me in MC-43 so as to develop the actual situation in that respect.

The CHAIRMAN. In connection with the briefs, I will take this opportunity of saying what came to my mind as you were talking. I think it might be helpful to the committee if you would file your briefs, if you have extra copies of them, with our staff. I do not say they will be made a part of the record as printed for the reason that it would be too much in the way of printing, but it might be helpful to us to have benefit of the information that those briefs contain if they are filed with us for use by our staff and by the membership.