Certain organizations, in the course of their testimony, suggested substitute language for specific proposals. Since these alternate proposals usually stemmed directly from comments on the specific proposals, they have been included with the digest of the testimony for reader convenience, rather than shown separately. The diversity of views on the various topics has made it difficult in some instances to classify an organization as a proponent or opponent. For example, a witness may have favored the principle of a particular proposal but disapproved of certain features or amendatory language. To avoid too much fragmentation of the digests, such a witness is generally shown as a proponent with the expressed disagreement left in the same digest. Similarly, where the emphasis appears to have been one of disagreement, the witness is shown as an opponent but with his favorable comments included. Again, inasmuch as the digest and analysis is centered upon H. R. 6141, a witness, accordingly, who may favor a general principle, but supports a different bill for its accomplishment, or believes that no amendment to existing law is necessary or desirable, generally has been classified as an opponent. Testimony by individual witnesses regarding maximum-minimum specific rate power and the rule of ratemaking tended to overlap in certain instances. Depending upon the identification made by the witness or his principal emphasis, the digest of the testimony was placed under one or the other topic. Similar overlapping occurs in regard to the definitions of common, contract, and private carriers. For this reason it has not been practical to separate the digests in accordance with type of transportation. The little specific testimony on the proposal concerning the cancellation of through routes in section 15 (3) has been included with maximum-minimum specific rate power. Witnesses testifying with respect to the long-and-short-haul clause, in certain instances, combined disagreement with the proposals of the principal bills with approval of H. R. 6208. It seemed advisable from the standpoint of clarity of position not to separate the digest of testimony as to the bills or as to proponents and opponents. Where separation was feasible it was followed. Similarly, the joint consideration of H. R. 525 with the principal bills made it advisable to treat the subject of transportation free or at reduced rates in the same. manner. Testimony on the individual freight forwarder bills and the bill providing for free transportation of attendants for the physically handicapped are separated by bill number under the section "Mis cellaneous." An index, containing separate alphabetical lists of organizations and witnesses, cross referenced, is appended. ACKNOWLEDGMENT In the preparation of such digest and analysis, our late distinguished and greatly beloved chairman, J. Percy Priest, made arrangements with Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks and Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission Anthony Arpaia for providing additional technical staff assistance. The committee here expresses its appreciation to Messrs. Philip A. Ray, Edward Margolin, Alfred U. Krebs, Donald C. Leavens, Robert G. Rhodes, Byron L. Nupp, and Ernest Nash, of the Department of Commerce, and to Messrs. Hiram H. Spicer, Dale W. Hardin, James A. Murray, Harold A. Downs, Chester Zyblut, Eugene Kline, James Heatherly, and Robert Berrien, of the Interstate Commerce Commission, for their assistance; as well as to Secretary Weeks and Chairman Arpaia for making possible the utilization of the services of these contributors to this work. OREN HARRIS, Acting Chairman. |