The Interstate Commerce Commission in its comment with respect to this feature of the proposed legislation expressed the opinion that the proposed section 25 would be drastic in its effects.

In view of the foregoing, the Department cannot agree with this conclusion. The fact is that no carrier could depart in any respect from its existing tariffs, whether or not the subject of an existing order, without filing a new tariff, permitting the waiting period to elapse, and subjecting itself to attack by suspension or complaint.

The important thing is to adopt some procedure which, as to changed policies, will permit the carriers promptly to operate in accordance with the changed policies and not require them to litigate existing rate orders out of existence on a case-by-case basis (pp. 1747, 1748).

XV. MISCELLANEOUS

Provisions of Interstate Commerce Act

The last sentence of section 305 (c) of the act provides that differences in the classifications, rates, fares, charges, rules, regulations, and practices of a water carrier in respect of water transportation from those in effect by a rail carrier with respect to rail transportation shall not be deemed to constitute unjust discrimination, prejudice, or disadvantage, or an unfair or destructive competitive practice, within the meaning of any provision of the act.

Amendments proposed by H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142

Section 15 (c) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would strike out the last sentence of section 305 (c) of the act since the new section 15a (c) which would be inserted in the act by section 8 of the bills provides, among other things, that differences in the classifications, rates, fares, charges, etc., as between different modes of transport, each with respect to its own type of service, shall not be deemed to constitute unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage, or an unlawful practice within the meaning of any provision of the act so long as such classifications, rates, fares, charges, etc., do not result in less than reasonable minimum charges.

Purpose of amendments

The purpose of the amendments is to extend to all modes of transport the principle now applicable only to water carriers under the sentence which is being stricken.

Testimony

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(Louis S. Rothschild, Under Secretary for Transportation)

Section 15a (3) as proposed would give legislative recognition to the actual fact that differences do exist as between various modes of transportation. The new provisions would extend to other forms of transportation the same rule now applied in section 305 (c) to water carriers alone. Enactment of this provision would equalize the regulatory relationship as between various modes of transportation to the end that advantages inherent to the particular modes of transport are not blocked by regulatory inhibitions (R. 181).

Opponents

AMERICAN BARGE LINES, INC.; COMMERCIAL BARGE LINES, INC.; COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CORP., INC.; UNION' BARGE LINE CORP.

(J. Haden Alldredge)

Section 25 would place the power in the hands of the carriers to nullify, by the mere filing of revised tariffs, all prior decisions of the Commission-many of which have been reviewed and upheld by the court-respecting rates, fares, or charges. The decisions in ICC dockets 28300 and 28310, particularly, which were obtained after great effort and long delay, would undoubtedly be destroyed in comparatively short order. With the limitations proposed to be put on the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to prescribe the measure of rates and charges for the future, none of the former decisions and orders could be reinstated exactly as they were (R. 1701).

AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

(J. M. Hood)

Statutory repeal of outstanding rate orders could and probably would precipitate a long period of confusion and much litigation. The Commission should continue to determine what outstanding orders should be canceled or modified, and it should not be done by Congress in a wholesale manner (R. 892).

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

(Anthony F. Arpaia)

The proposal that outstanding orders shall have no effect after 180 days from the effective date of the bill, and that all outstanding orders would automatically expire upon the publication and filing of such rates as carriers might choose to establish in lieu of those required by existing orders, would have drastic effects. The Commission presently makes a continuous check with a view to vacating obsolete orders. To enact the proposal would cause more litigation, and enable carriers to disrupt rate systems established through exhaustive proceedings. The present system was arrived at in the light of facts presented to the Commission by railroads, shippers, and others, in the expectation that the result would have some degree of permanence. The legislative policy of Congress has been one of reluctance to pass laws having retroactive effect in the absence of strong reasons therefor. The Commission opposes enactment of this proposal (R. 283-284).

NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION

(F. F. Estes)

If section 25 is enacted, then 6 months later every rate order of the ICC issued since its inception, that is now outstanding, and the issuance of which involved long and tedious hearings and litigation, would be nullified. Such a revolutionary and vitiating provision should cer

tainly be most carefully considered and evaluated before approved by this committee or the Congress (R. 877).

NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

(John M. Agrey)

This proposal would cancel many ICC orders issued in cases which are very important to those who prosecuted them. It would in large part vacate the orders in the case where a uniform level of class rates was prescribed throughout the country east of the Rocky Mountains. The proposal should be defeated entirely. Carriers and other aggrieved parties may petition for reconsideration or file a complaint. Orders should be vacated only after everyone has had an opportunity to be heard (R. 798).

OSCAR MAYER & CO., RATH PACKING CO., GEORGE A. HORMEL & CO., JOHN MORRELL & CO.

(Warren H. Wagner)

The proposal that all outstanding rate orders would be ineffective 6 months after enactment contemplates the complete destruction of what has gone before, after long and expensive litigation. It took Oscar Mayer & Co., 16 years and 4 formal cases to get its carload rates lined up with Chicago and the Mississippi River. If outstanding orders are to be canceled, of what value will be an order issued hereafter? (R. 1793.)

PROPERTY OWNERS COMMITTEE

(William N. Maddox)

This proposal would void, 180 days after its enactment, all outstanding rate orders of the Commission prescribing minimum or maximum rates, for all modes of transportation. To set aside all these orders of the Commission upon a given day would result in a rash of litigation and widespread disruption in these longstanding adjustments. The instability resulting from the cancellation of the outstanding rate orders of the Commission would be contrary to the public interest (R. 1074).

Additional opponents

Fargo (N. Dak.) Chamber of Commerce, J. I. Finsness (R. 1000). Grand Rapids (Mich.) Chamber of Commerce, C. E. Elerick (R. 1718).

Intercoastal Steamship Freight Association, Harry S. Brown (R. 1053).

WESTERN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION

(Carl E. Anderson)

H. R. 9177 was introduced by Congressman Hinshaw, at the witness' request. It proposes to amend section 405 of part IV of the Interstate Commerce Act (which requires forwarders to publish rates from and to all "points between which property will be transported") by striking out the period after the final word "consignee," substituting a colon, and adding:

Provided, That nothing in this part shall be construed as requiring any freight forwarder to publish tariffs stating rates to or from points at which the forwarder has no agent.

Such an amendment would not relax the requirement which is placed upon every freight forwarder by section 404, "to provide and furnish, upon reasonable request therefor, the service subject to this part covered by its permit"-that is, to serve its authorized territory adequately. The obligation would still remain upon it to find agents through which to give service wherever possible, but it would be relieved of the duty (if such duty now exists) of publishing rates to and from points where it has no agent and can find none (R. 1428). There ensued a description of the witness' method of operating, difficulties encountered in ratemaking procedure, and a proposal that the entire part IV of the act be repealed. A rebuttal statement on behalf of the Freight Forwarders Institute followed (R. 1429-1443).

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

(Anthony F. Arpaia)

H. R. 9177 would amend section 405 (a), by adding a proviso to that subsection to the effect that a forwarder shall not be required. to publish tariffs stating rates and charges to and from points or places at which the forwarder has no agent. A forwarder could not very well provide service, which it has a duty to perform upon reasonable request as specified in section 404 of the act, unless it has on file with the Commission tariffs containing rates and charges for the service.

Section 405 (e) prohibits a forwarder from engaging in service subject to the act unless the rates and charges for such service have been filed and published. Section 405 (a) requires 30 days' notice for the establishment of rates and charges.

A forwarder could curtail or extend its service at will within the scope of its operating authority under this proposal merely by discontinuing or creating an agency despite its statutory duty to perform such service upon reasonable request. Shippers could never be certain as to the service available, and prejudices and preferences would result. There is also a question as to what is intended by the term "agent." Forwarders do not as a rule use their own employees as agents except possibly at certain assembling or breakbulk points. They usually serve offline points through the use of motor carriers, which sometimes do not themselves maintain an agent at such points. It is not believed that the enactment of H. R. 9177 would be in the public interest (R. 288-289).

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE

(William H. Ott)

The proposal to relieve freight forwarders of the requirement of publishing rates and charges to points at which a forwarder has no agent, is opposed. Section 410 requires the holding of an operating permit, and section 404 (a) requires the performance of service within the scope of the permit and the establishment of rates and charges for the service. The proposal is inconsistent with these requirements. In the absence of publication shippers and receivers would have no

way of knowing where forwarder service was available or at what price. The practical effect of nonpublication would be the discontinuance of service as to the points involved. Other transportation agencies make arrangements for service to and from nonagency points at known charges on file with the Commission (R. 941-942).

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS

(Carl H. Bier)

H. R. 9548 is designed to permit freight forwarders to participate in piggyback operations. The people who work in the industry see no reason why forwarders should not have the same privilege as trucklines have in this respect. Forwarders, who are the best qualified to take the full advantages of the service available to the public, are prevented from doing so by a technicality which the bill would remove.

In operation, railroads handle their own freight (normally moving in boxcars) in trailers on flatcars, or haul the trailers of motor carriers at lower costs and for lower rates. Forwarders must operate under the first method, although they perform all other services in connection with the shipment. It is understood that motor carriers can move their trailers at 40 percent of the tariff rates. What they are doing under joint arrangements with railroads is exactly what forwarders have always done (R. 1465-1466).

FREIGHT FORWARDERS INSTITUTE

(Giles Morrow)

With respect to H. R. 9548, its enactment is necessary because there is now no practical basis on which freight forwarders can legally utilize piggyback service, and because the motor carriers who compete with forwarders for traffic already are authorized to use the service on a contractual basis. The motor carriers not only are using piggyback service in a manner denied to forwarders, but through the medium of piggyback, are conducting operations that cannot be distinguished in any detail from freight forwarder operations, and thus are invading the field of activity of freight forwarders. The price differential between the published tariff rates of the railroads and their contract rates with motor carriers covering piggyback service is one of the main reasons why freight forwarders are effectively barred from using the service at the present time (R. 1158–1160).

The Freight Forwarders Institute has urged the Interstate Commerce Commission to be guided by certain principles which the Institute considers basic. Among these principles were: (1) That freight forwarders should be afforded substantially like and equal treatment with other common carriers who might be authorized to utilize rail piggyback service, and (2) that no other types of carriers should be permitted to invade the field of freight forwarding under the guise of a piggyback operation.

The Commission's decision in Movement of Highway Trailers by Rail (293 I. C. C. 93) ran counter to the two principles urged by the institute. The decision established in general the propositions that a