The measure has been submitted to the Department of Justice by the committee, which department reports that there is no objection to the passage of the bill. The letter follows:

Hon. ANDREW J. VOLSTEAD,

Chairman Committee on the Judiciary,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D. C., October 1, 1919.

House of Representatives.

DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 25th ultimo and have given careful consideration to the copy of bill (H. R. 10207) which you transmitted, said bill providing for service of process in causes removed from a State to a United States court. I know of no reason why the bill should not be enacted into law.

CONGRESS

RETURN OF RAILROADS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

NOVEMBER 10, 1919.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Escн, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 10453.]

The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 10453 to provide for the termination of Federal control of railroads and systems of transportation; to provide for the settlement of disputes between the carriers and their employees; to further amend the act entitled, "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, as amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same report thereon with the recommendation that it pass.

WORK OF THE COMMITTEE.

H. R. 4378, introduced June 2, 1919, constituted the basis for the hearings held by the committee. Only one other bill, H. R. 8157, introduced by Hon. Thetus W. Sims, a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and presenting the so-called "Plumb plan," was introduced. The committee after giving notice that hearings would begin on a given date, being delayed because of the necessity of giving consideration to and securing the passage of important measures, began hearings on July 15. These hearings continued with morning and afternoon sessions continuously until September 27. Some 3,500 pages of testimony have been printed. Exclusive of the printed hearings, numerous exhibits were filed. Proponents of various plans were first heard. These were followed by witnesses interested in special features of the railroad problem, or special interests which would be affected by the legislation sought to be enacted. Practically every person who applied for a hearing had his request granted. Every class, condition, and interest found one or more representatives in the long list of witnesses. These wit

nesses came from no particular section but from every part of the country. Almost without exception, the witnesses were well versed in the subjects they sought to present. The special and general knowledge of many of them will make these hearings of especial value. No more elaborate and intensive investigation of the railroads and their relations to the Government and to the public has ever been undertaken by a committee of Congress. Your committee respectfully offers these hearings for careful study not only by Members of Congress but by the country generally.

Before entering upon these hearings the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce asked only consent to sit during sessions and recesses of the House. It asked no appropriation to secure attendance of witnesses or for the hiring of legal counsel, expert accountants, or other help. Outside of an insignificant sum for the payment of telegrams and the cost of taking and printing the testimony, these hearings have cost the Government nothing. Scores of witnesses voluntarily appeared and gave us the benefit of their views and study. Private individuals appeared representing nobody but themselves. Labor organization appeared through numerous representatives. The side of the shippers and of the general public was given full presentation. Days were devoted to listening to representatives of carriers by rail and water. The wire systemstelegraph, telephone, cable, and wireless made their showing.

Although H. R. 4378 (Esch-Pomerene bill) was made the basis of consideration during the course of the hearings and in executive sessions of the committee, drafts of bills presented to the committee but not introduced in Senate or House were carefully examined and their special features given due consideration. Among such drafts and bills were those presented: By the railway executives, known as the Railway Executives' plan"; by the transportation conference, being the plan indorsed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, known as the "Transportation Conference plan"; by the National Association of Owners of Railroad Securities, known as the "Warfield plan"; by the Citizens' National Railroads League, outlined in S. 2889, known as the "Amster-Lenroot plan"; by the Railroad Brotherhoods as set forth in H. R. 8157, introduced by request by Hon. Thetus W. Sims, known as the "Plumb plan." Several other plans less pretentious in purpose and scope were presented. In addition to these drafts and bills witnesses offered many amendments to H. R. 4378 and also amendments to the other drafts and bills. As H. R. 4378 was originally introduced it contained no provisions relating to the termination of Federal control, or to the financial readjustment of the carriers with the Government necessitated by such control, or for financing the carriers during the period of reconstruction immediately following the termination of such control. The bill now reported makes such provisions and the details will be hereinafter explained.

GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

In view of the fact that the President early this year delivered to the Houses in joint session a message in which he expressed his intention to return the roads to private ownership and control by the end of the current year, and in view of the desire on the part of the

carriers to be so returned and the widespread demand among the people that Federal control cease as soon as suitable legislation could be enacted, your committee has not recommended Government ownership as a solution for the railroad problem. Only one bill (Plumb plan) has been introduced at this session providing for ownership of the railroads by the United States Government. This bill not merely asks that the Government should secure ownership and control of the railroads, but also asks for employee operation thereof. The provisions of this bill are so radical and the principles so foreign to the fundamental principles of our Government that it was considered by our committee as impossible. Notwithstanding this fact, the committee devoted six days to listening to its proponents. As a result of a rigid cross-examination of these proponents, the committee was all the more strongly convinced that it was not and ought not to be the solution which should be proposed to the House. There is appended to this report a summary of the proposed plans for railroad legislation prepared by Richard Waterman, secretary, Railroad Committee, Chamber of Commerce of the United States. It should be noted, however, that this summary covered H. R. 4378 as originally introduced and not as now pending and also gives a summary of the original Cummins bill (S. 2906) and not the Cummins bill as reported to the Senate (S. 3288). An examination of this summary discloses the fact that the several bills and drafts or plans have certain features in common. All except the "Plumb plan" provide for ownership of all railroads of the United States by private corporations, with operation by such carriers. All advocate consolidations including the "Plumb plan." Some, including the pending bill, go only to the extent of permissive consolidation. Some provide for permissive and some for compulsory Federal incorporation. All drafts, bills, and plans set forth in the above summary provide for full control by the Interstate Commerce Commission over stock and bond issues. As to wages and working conditions the various drafts, bills, and plans differ widely. Most of them provide for some form of arbitration board, with the right of appealing to some higher board, such as a "Transportation Board." As to the Federal agency of regulation there is also much diversity of a plan and method. All of them agree, however, in the maintenance of the Interstate Commerce Commission with its present rate-making powers. In addition to the commission some of the plans provide for a Federal "Transportation Board;" others, such as the pending bill, increase the powers of the commission instead of granting such additional powers to the "Transportation Board," or other like agency.

OBJECTIONS TO INCLUDING IN THE PENDING BILL SOME OF THE FEATURES FOUND IN ONE OR MORE OF THE PROPOSED DRAFTS, BILLS, OR PLANS.

In support of a transportation board advisory to or wholly independent of the Interstate Commerce Commission, it is argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission as now functioning has administrative as well as quasi judicial powers and that the exercise of such powers by a single agency is contrary to the spirit of our Constitution; that the commission is now overburdened with work and

that its burdens will still further be increased should the pending bill be enacted; that the transportation board would be able to take a broader view of transportation problems and after investigation be able to recommend plans and policies looking to the better coordination of all forms of transportation-rail, highway, and water; that it would more wisely determine the financial needs of the carriers; could formulate the transportation budgets and declare what should be the level of rates and issue a mandate to the Interstate Commerce Commission to so adjust the level of rates as to meet the financial needs as found by the transportation board; that the grant to and exercise of such powers by the board would "fortify" the Interstate Commerce Commission in any action it might take in fixing the rates necessary to meet the board's mandate. Your committee, while conceding the merits of some of the arguments presented in support of a transportation board, concluded that such board was not necessary and for the following, among other reasons:

The transportation board with its members nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate would in all probability be made subject to political influence certainly more so than the Interstate Commerce Commission-a quasi judicial body; it would not and could not have for many years to come the intimate knowledge of all phases of the railroad problem, financial, commercial, operative, or otherwise. It would be impossible to so separate the functions of the transportation board from those of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to prevent duplication of work or conflict of authority. It would be but another governmental agency whose gantlet of regulations and restraints would have to be run by the shippers of the country. With the high salaries that would have to be paid to secure competent members, with a staff of experts, accountants, attorneys, agents, and examiners, a large and increasing burden would be laid upon the Federal Treasury. The Interstate Commerce Commission does not need any governmental agency to "fortify" it for the performance of its duties. No other official body in our Government stands higher in the estimation of our people. Its integrity, nonpartisanship, and fearlessness in the performance of its duties can not be questioned.

The creation of a transportation board to take over the various administrative duties of the Interstate Commerce Commission with reference to safety-appliance acts, hours-of-service act, explosives act, boiler-inspection act, and other acts, can not be justified on the ground that the administration of these several acts by the Interstate Commerce Commission has not been efficient and satisfactory. It is certain that these acts can not be better administered if their administration were transferred to the board. If this be true, why transfer their administration? Under the organization now existing under the commission for the administration of these several acts, the judicial functions of the commission have not been interfered with. In fact, the commission has been aided in the performance of its judicial functions by reason of the intimate knowledge its members have acquired as to practical problems of railroad administration arising out of the administration of these several acts. In short, your committee fears that the creation of a transportation board, no matter how clearly its duties may be differentiated from those that