on pages 168 and 169 of the Commission's 70th Annual Report to Congress in which it urges the enactment of a bill such as S. 943. A copy of this statement is enclosed. The sole beneficiaries of this proposals are the common carriers. We respectfully submit that it becomes extremely difficult to visualize this proposal as one for the public good unless we conclude that anything that is good for the common carrier is good for the public. The prime aircraft manufacturers, in the distribution of work among subcontractors as urged by Congress, extensively use the service of contract carriers to assure a continuous flow of parts to prime contractors' plants and the uninterrupted flow of these parts coupled with the unimpaired operation of these carriers has become a prime necessity. We, therefore, earnestly hope you will oppose this bill. Very truly yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, HARRY R. BRASHEAR, UNITED STATES SENATE, Chairman, Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Enclosed is House Concurrent Resolution C-2, adopted by the North Dakota Legislature, opposing any repeal or change in the long-and-short-haul clause of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act. I understand legislation is pending before your committee which would amend this section. I concur wholeheartedly with the views expressed by the North Dakota Legislature. I feel that such a change would have an adverse effect on the agricultural and other interests of our State. With kindest regards, Sincerely yours, MILTON R. YOUNG. Thirty-fifth Legislative Assembly, State of North Dakota, begun and held at the Capitol in the city of Bismarck, on Tuesday, the eighth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven. HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION C-2 (Wheeler, Leet, Poling, Baldwin, Paulsen and Rolfsrud) A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION opposing repeal or change of the long and short haul clause of section four of the Interstate Commerce Act Whereas there will be proposed and introduced in the Congress of the United States legislation providing for repeal of the long and short haul clause of the fourth section of the Interstate Commerce Act; and Whereas the repeal of the long and short haul clause would permit railroad companies to assess lower rates and charges for long hauls than for short hauls over the same route in the same direction; and Whereas the charging of a higher rate for a short haul than for a longer haul, the shorter being included within the longer, is now forbidden on North Dakota intrastate traffic in section 49-0409 of the North Dakota Revised Code of 1943; and Whereas the passage of such legislation will result in increased freight rates and charges on articles moving in interstate commerce to and from North Dakota. particularly on grain, lignite, and other commodities, to the detriment of producers, shippers and consumers of the State of North Dakota; that it would encourage discriminations in rates against small shippers in favor of large shippers that would be against the public interest; and would, we believe, be in the end detrimental to the best interests of the railroads themselves; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of North Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, That the Congress of the United States is hereby respectfully memorialized and urged to deny the passage of any legislation providing for the repeal or amendment of the long and short haul clause of the fourth section of the Interstate Commerce Act, when, as, and if presented for its consideration; be it further Resolved, That the Senators and Representatives of the State of North Dakota in the Congress of the United States be requested to put forth every honorable effort to defeat the aforesaid type of legislation upon presentation to the Congress of the United States, and that copies oft his memorial be forwarded forthwith by the Secretary of State to the President of the United States, to the President of the Senate, to the Speaker of he House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and to the Senators and Representatives of the State of North Dakota, and to the Committees which will consider such legislation. B. J. WOLF, Speaker of the House. Chief Clerk of the House. President of the Senate. Secretary of the Senate. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEATTLE (WASH.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, APRIL 2, 1957 The Seattle Chamber of Commerce urges the 1st session of the 85th Congress to enact legislation amending section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act so as to make the provision thereof permitting the performance of transportation services for Federal, State, and municipal governments free or at reduced rates applicable only during the time of war or national emergency, generally in accord with provisions of S. 939 and H. R. 3233. INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL S. 939 and H. R. 3233 are designed to amend section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act so as to limit its application with respect to reduced rates on Government traffic to time of war or national emergency. The proposed measure would also provide that agreements or arrangements between governments and the carriers for reduced rates under the section shall be binding upon the parties as of the date of acceptance or agreement, except for fraud, deceit or clear error. Section 22 now permits, among other things, "the carriage, storage, or handling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States, State, or municipal governments" and "the transportation of persons for the United States Government free or at reduced rates." These provisions are made applicable to common carriers by motor vehicle by section 217 (b), to common carriers by water by section 306 (c), and to freight forwarders, in the case of the transportation of property, by section 405 (c) of the act. Section 22, insofar as it applies to Government traffic, has been in the act substantially as it now stands since the enactment of the original Act To Regulate Commerce in 1887. The Government, at that time, was a small shipper and a small user of passenger facilities, whereas today it is the largest single purchaser of transportation services. Government traffic, however, moves largely at reduced rates under the aforementioned provisions of section 22 which are not available to the commercial shipper. This has a strong tendency to increase the cost of regulated transportation services to commercial users, who, when their rates become too high, resort to private carriage, all to the detriment of the common carriers, the hard core of the Nation's transportation system. These bills would serve in some measure to prevent any further deterioration of the common carrier system because of this situation by making the section 22 privilege on Government traffic inapplicable except during time of war or national emergency. The exception is provided because it is believed that complete elimination of the section 22 privilege with respect to Government transportation would not be in the interest of national defense. During time of war or other national emergency the Government requires the movement of a great many commodities as to which there are no published rates or over routes and between points as to which frequently no reasonable rates apply. Often it is unlikely that any commercial demand for the use of such routes, or in some cases for transit, storage, or other services, exists or ever will exist. There is also the necessity, particularly during emergency periods, for arrangements under which the secrecy of movements can be preserved. It should be made clear, however, that the full effect and benfit of this proposed amendment will not be realized if Government agencies remain free to bargain with carriers whose rates and charges are not subject to regulation. The purpose of the second proposed amendment to section 22, which is not dependent upon enactment of the foregoing proposal, is to enable appropriate Government agencies and the carriers to negotiate rates thereunder on a firm and unassailable basis. At one time section 22 arrangements were regarded as contracts binding on both the carriers and the Government, but in recent years the Government in the so-called Government reparation cases took the position that its utilization of charges so established was not a bar to its later undertaking to obtain still lower charges as a result of orders of the Commission entered after the filing of complaints by the Government. The provisions of section 22 are permissive, not mandatory, and section 22 rates are always lower than the existing published tariff rates available to the general public. The carriers are not, therefore, compelled to offer reduced rates to governments, and the governments, if they so choose, may elect to use the carriers' published tariff rates. Should the Federal Government, or any State or municipal government, be dissatisfied with the published tariff rates, they may seek a determination by the Commission as to the reasonableness thereof, the same as any other shipper. By having such a choice, the various governments are, from the outset, in a petter position than the commercial shipper to who section 22 does not apply. If they elect to contract for reduced rates under section 22 they should be bound by them. The carriers should not be subjected to a period of uncertainty as to their liability under section 22 arrangements for reduced rates on Government traffic. Accordingly, paragraph (b) of the draft bill would amend section 22 to provide that after a quotation or contract has been accepted or agreed to by the Federal, State, or municipal government, the rate so established shall be conclusively presumed to be just, reasonable, and otherwise lawful and shall not be subject to attack, or reparation, after the date of such acceptance or agreement upon any ground whatsoever except for actual fraud or deceit or clerical mistake. Superficially, it might appear that any inability on the part of the Government to seek a review of section 22 rates would deprive them of a right enjoyed by shippers generally, and that they would thereby be placed in a position inferior to that of other shippers. However, this would not be the case since, in addition to having the benefit of reduced rates under section 22 which are not available to the general public, they would still have the same right as any other shipper to complain to the Commission of the unreasonableness of a published tariff rate. It does not appear inequitable, therefore, when the Federal Government, or a State or municipal government, accepts a section 22 rate lower than the published tariff rate applicable to other shippers, that it be precluded from seeking review of such rate by the Commission. The proposed measure would also prevent consideration of the reduced rates as evidence of unreasonableness of other rates, and provides that its enactment shall have no effect on transactions other than those carried out under its provisions. These amendments are supported by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the American Trucking Association. LOS ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Los Angeles, Calif., April 3, 1957. Regarding: S. 937, rail circuitous routes; S. 943, motor carrier contract rates. Hon. GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR CHAIRMAN SMATHERS: The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce respectfully submits the attached recommendations regarding S. 937 and S. 943, which we understand are scheduled for public hearing before your honorable committee on April 15, 16, and 17, 1957. These recommendations were formulated by our rail and highway traffic committee, and have been approved by our board of directors. Our organization is composed of representatives of the agricultural, manufacturing and commercial interests of metropolitan Los Angeles, comprising Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Metropolitan Los Angeles is the third largest metropolitan area in the Nation, as gaged by Value Added by Manufacture (1954 Census of Manufactures). It is our hope that these recommendations will prove helpful to your honorable committee, and that your committee will recommend enactment of S. 937, but will recommend disapproval of S. 943. Respectfully, CHARLES E. DUCOMMUN, President. MARCH 29, 1957. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF S. 937 AND H. R. 2808 Bills to relieve the Interstate Commerce Commission and the railroads of legal and clerical expense; and, to permit longer-route railroads to meet the competition of shorter-route railroads at points served by both The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, through its rail and highway traffic committee and its board of directors, respectfully recommends the enactment of S. 937 and H. R. 2808, for the following reasons: 1. Present law now subjects the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Nation's railroads to much unnecessary legal and clerical expense in applying for and processing applications for authority to meet competition by longerroute railroads at points on their lines served by shorter-route competing railroads. 2. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce believes that the provisions of S. 937 and H. R. 2808 requiring rates charged in such circumstances to be reasonably compensatory, together with other provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act now in effect requiring such rates to be nonpreferential, nonprejudicial, just and reasonable, provide ample protection to the public, since the short-route as well as the long-route railroad must meet all of these legal requirements. 3. Under the proposed legislation, it would still be necessary for the shortestroute railroad to secure authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission for permission to depart from the law forbidding the exaction of higher charges for shorter than for longer hauls (the "long-and-short haul" and "aggregate-ofintermediate rates" clauses of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act). Only when such authority had been granted to the shortest-route carrier would the longer-route (circuitous route) carriers be permitted to automatically meet the short line's competition. 4. In the interest of greater freedom of competition between rail carriers, and the avoidance of excessively burdensome and unnecessary clerical and legal expense, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce recommends the enactment of S. 937 and its companion bill H. R. 2808, or any similar measures. STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO S. 943 AND H. R. 3774 Bills to require contract carriers via motor vehicle to file their actual rates, rather than their minimum rates, with the Interstate Commerce Commission The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, through its rail and highway traffic committee and its board of directors, respectfully recommends the disapproval of S. 943 and H. R. 3774, for the following reasons: 1. So-called contract carriers by highway vehicles are presently regulated by the Interstate Commerce Act. They are required to prove fitness, and that their operations are in the public interest before the Interstate Commerce Commission will grant them a permit to begin operations. They are required to file with the Commission, and keep open to public inspection, minimum rate schedules. The Commission has power to order such minimum rates increased if they are found to be unreasonably low. The minimum rates so filed must be actually charged on at least some shipments, but higher rates may be charged in other instances. Contract carriers may reduce their minimum rates only upon 30 days' notice to the Commission, and the Commission has power to suspend and investigate the proposed reduced rates. 2. "Common" carriers hold themselves out to perform transportation services for all comers. By law they are required to publish, file with the Commission, and keep open for public inspection, schedules showing the actual or precise rates they charge, rather than merely minimum rates. 3. Contract carrier operations are essentially substitutes for proprietary operation, and have little similarity to common carrier service. Contract carriers do not "hold themselves out" to serve the general public as do common carriers. The proposed requirement of publication and strict observance of actual rates charged in all instances, would destroy a great measure of the flexibility of contract carriage, which flexibility is one of its most useful and valuable attributes. 4. Contract carriers fill an economic need for for-hire transportation of a specialized nature which common carriers usually are not fitted to perform. Burdening contract carriers with additional regulations will needlessly increase transportation costs to the shipping public, and will tend to reduce the utilization of contract carrier services, correspondingly stimulating the growth of proprietary transportation operations. 5. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce believes that contract carriers should not be subjected to additional regulation as proposed; accordingly, it is recommended that S. 943 and H. R. 3774, or any similar measures, be disapproved. STATEMENT OF LEONARD MONGEON, NATIONAL RETAIL DRY GOODS ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT OF S. 378 WHO WE REPRESENT The National Retail Dry Goods Association is a trade association for department stores and specialty stores. We have over 8,000 member stores located in every State in the Union and in the District of Columbia. I am manager of the traffic group of this association, which is composed of the traffic managers of member stores. Our member stores embrace both chains and independents, with annual sales volumes of individual stores ranging from as little as $75,000 to as much as $200 million. The great majority of our members are classified as small business under any existing criteria. Approximately 52 percent have annual sales volumes under one-half million dollars and employ less than 50 people. Our members use all forms of transportation, including railroads, motor carriers, freight forwarders, Railway Express Agency, Government parcel post, water lines and some air freight. These methods of transportation are used to transport merchandise from manufacturers, wholesalers and jobbers to our stores for resale to the American consuming public. BASIS FOR OUR SUPPORT Our association has gone on record in favor of the enactment of S. 378, which would make motor common carriers and freight forwarders subject to reparation awards the same as railroads and water lines. It is only fair and reasonable that reparation awards should be made to shippers and receivers on motor common carrier and freight forwarder shipments where the rate charged is the correct tariff rate, but subsequently the Commission, on complaint, finds that that particular rate or rates is unreasonably high and unjustified. Under present law the transportation charges in excess of those that would have accrued had a reasonable rate been assessed by the motor carrier or freight forwarder cannot be recovered by our members. In simple fairness we should be entitled to recover excessive transportation charges under such conditions. If a railroad shipment is involved we can recover under part I, section 16–3 of the act and on a water carrier shipment we recover under part III, section 308-F. As we are very large users of both motor common carrier and freight forwarder service, we strongly recommend that your committee favorably report S. 378 to the floor of the Senate. May we respectfully request that our statement be incorporated in the transcript of the hearings. |