me that a truck can start out from St. Paul with two men on it and compete with the railroads on rates. It doesn't show they have been too efficient on rates. One man can go out, and the railroads are complaining about competition. It doesn't seem reasonable.

I think we need them, and I think it is a yardstick to determine and show what value is and what the dollar still is in the measure of transportation.

Fifth, the proposed legislation is grossly—you know I wouldn't be quite this drastic, but they are here to put me out of business. I am not here to complain against the common carriers. I just want to be left in business. But they brought this up. I didn't.

Fifth, the proposed legislation is grossly unfair to existing carriers. The case of Dart Transit Co., my own company, is a case in point. Dart is a successor in interest to several individuals, including myself. The individual predecessors of Dart were engaged in operation as motor carriers some time prior to 1935, when the first Federal legislation was enacted in this field. The predecessors operated as both contract and common carriers of general commodities. As was common in those days, relatively few records were kept. And there, again, I might tell you that when I made application to the ICC in 1935, I made application for common, contract, and brokerage, not knowing what they were going to grant, and I think some attorneys with the railroads had a good bit to say about what was given to me.

Later I discovered it was quite a cleverly written piece, because it said I could haul from and to this point without compensation for return, and when I got to working under it, it wasn't a very practical thing, and the only thing that has made it good is time. I have waited for it, and today I could probably operate with it when I couldn't do well in those days with it.

Senator PURTELL. But you did, as a matter of fact, survive.

Mr. OREN. I have survived, but I have been selling real estate on the side to survive, but I want to stay in business. I don't like to quit too easily.

Senator PURTELL. I would judge that would be your nature.
Mr. OREN. That is

my nature.

Dart is a successor in interest to several individuals, including myself. The individual predecessors of Dart were engaged in operation as motor carriers some time prior to 1935, when the first Federal legislation was enacted in this field. The predecessors operated as both contract and common carriers of general commodities. As was common in those days, relatively few records were kept. Furthermore, a number of records that were in existence were destroyed by fire early in 1935. When Congress enacted regulation of motor carriers I made application for grandfather rights to the local staff of the ICC.

Of course, they knew more about it than I did, supposedly, so I had no complaint. At that time I had no legal assistance and I had to rely upon the advice given to me by the ICC staff as to the proper procedure. Relying on this advice, an application was made for authority to operate as a contract carrier of packinghouse products, dairy products, canned goods, and certain other commodities. I was assured by the ICC staff that this authority would enable me to continue operations substantially as they had been before the Motor Car

rier Act, and I didn't have any idea when I accepted this order they would freeze things if I made application, and a shipper wanted me to serve an additional commodity in an additional territory it would be so difficult to get it. I thought I could get it. I thought I would be able to expand. That is where I was fooled.

On February 7, 1942, I was issued a permit, MC-77055, to operate as a contract carrier of specified commodities between particular points, with no transportation for compensation on return except as specifically authorized. Although I was not wholly satisfied with the authority, relying upon assurances of the ICC staff I operated under this authority from 1935 until after World War II. Beginning about 1946 the ICC began efforts to limit the scope of my operations on the claim I was exceeding my authority. There were a number of legal hearings and proceedings, the details of which are not important here, and finally an order was issued restraining the scope of my operations. I have continued to operate under the permit as restricted by this interpretative order.

It was pretty damaging, too. I bought about $60,000 worth of equipment I agreed to pay for in 2 years. Overnight I lost 75 percent of my business, and the creditors still wanted payments on the trucks. I didn't find the Government willing to take the trucks for the taxes. I still had the taxes to pay. I had to borrow $5,000. That is what I run into. Regulation is all right, but it can be very bad, too; it can be very damaging, and a businessman, sometimes when there is regulation, might be just a little fearful of putting his money out today. I think we should encourage people to be more safe in increasing their capital than I have been, but I am not investing more until I know what this is going to be, because I will run my equipment off its feet before I buy any more unless I know I will be in business when this is over, and I think just the fear of this sort of legislation is going to hold back progress, development, and it is just going to stop people from attempting to even enlarge.

Senator PURTELL. Do you presently operate quite a number of trucks?

Mr. OREN. I have 20 trailers, about a hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment-that is quite a bit for me. If I had the hundred thousand dollars today, I would probably take it and run. If the proposed legislation were enacted, my ability to operate would be further limited and cut down. It should be obvious that changing the name by which Dart Transit Co. is called, from contract carrier to common carrier, will not change its operation. However, the proposal contained in H. R. 5123 is to permit the ICC to force any contract carrier to lose its authority or to be converted into a common carrier with the same commodity and point restrictions as it previously had. That is the part that is not fair competition, if we are going to be in there trying to compete on that basis. If they are thinking of fair competition, that surely they know is not fair competition.

However, even though such restrictions may be appropriate and practical for a contract carrier, they are inappropriate and impractical for a common carrier. I can operate at a smll profit despite the restrictions and limitations imposed upon me, by virtue of the ability to negotiate individual contracts with separate shippers, so that I am serving their particular needs and at the same time utilizing my own

equipment as efficiently as possible. However, if I am required to serve the general public subject to the same limitations I now labor under as a contract carrier, I will soon be bankrupt.

Let me illustrate the problem for you. When I applied for authority, the ICC staff examined the particular records that appeared to be available and discovered records showing the transportation of commodity X from St. Paul, Minn., to Rochester, Minn.; of commodity Y from Rochester to Dubuque; and of commodity Z from Dubuque to Chicago. Instead of authorizing me to transport commodities X, Y, and Z from St. Paul to Chicago by way of Rochester and Dubuque, my authority limits me to the transportation of commodity X from St. Paul to Rochester, of commodity Y from Rochester to Dubuque, and of commodity Z from Dubuque to Chicago, return with no transportation for compensation.

Of course, the actual permit has many more points and commodities specified, but this illustration shows the principle. As a contract carrier I can make arrangements with my shippers to coordinate truck movements in such fashion as to utilize equipment efficiency, give my shippers needed service, and still stay within the limits of this authority. It is pretty narrow authority, though, I want to tell you. But it is better than what they are proposing.

It is is not always easy to do this, but I do manage to do it. However, if I were a common carrier and required to serve any shipper on commodity X from St. Paul to Rochester, commodity Y from Rochester to Dubuque, and commodity Z from Dubuque to Chicago, it would be impossible for me to arrange for the utilization of equipment in a sufficiently efficient manner to stay in business.

I am sure that it is true of hundreds of other small contract carriers that this legislation would in effect force them out of business. without any compensation for the years of effort which they have devoted to building up their businesses and to helping the transportation service of this country.

Well, there is one sure thing about it, if they are serving one business, and that business goes out of business, they are out of business. Or if the shipper moves his plant, they are no longer in business, so I cannot see that they would be very enthusiastic about this.

I am convinced that forcing these contract carriers out of business would be harmful to the public and to the economy of the country, and would result in higher transportation costs and less efficient transportation service.

At a matter of elementary fairness, I ask that Congress protect my right to stay in business and to continue to furnish transportation service to the public in the same manner that I have been doing for the last 22 decades. I also ask Congress to preserve contract carriage as one of the important modes of transportation to be fostered and protected. If there should be an inclination to pass legislation of the kind proposed, the effect of which will be to outlaw contract carriers for practical purposes, I ask that either (a) contract carriers with grandfather rights be exempted from the scope of such legislation, or (b) contract carriers in existence today be given the right to convert to common carriers of general commodities within the territory which they now serve and not subject to the strict limitations now imposed upon them as contract carriers, which would be impractical for common carriers.

Many more detailed arguments in favor of my proposals and in opposition to the principle of the proposed legislation could be urged. Basically, however, my arguments come down to these two: First, it is contrary to the public interest, uneconomical, and inefficient to pass legislation the effect of which will be to limit contract carriers so drastically as virtually to eliminate them from the economy; and, second, it is unfair and highly improper to pass legislation the effect of which will be to destroy the business and the means of livelihood of myself and hundreds of others like me who have been engaged in business as contract carriers for many years under the laws and transportation policy established by Congress itself in 1935.

Senator PURTELL. Thank you very much. There is one question that I wondered if Mr. Spicer would be willing to answer. Mr. Oren, of course, has brought up a very important point. His testimony indicates his feeling as to the impact of this proposed amendment, should it be enacted, and you do propose, or the proposal is made, that where the Commission may, upon its own initiative, upon application of a permit holder, complaint of an interested party, after notice of hearing, and so forth, revoke a permit and issue in lieu thereof a certificate-now it does, however that certificate would, as has been pointed out by the witness, it would limit, would would it not, as a common carrier the carrying of only the same commodities between the same points as authorized in the permit; is that correct?

Mr. SPICER. That is correct. That section of the bill expressly so provides.

Senator PURTELL. So that the witness is quite correct in his statement there, and his feeling that the impact on this would be disastrous as he has expressed, of course, as a matter of opinion. Have you any questions?

We have with us now the regular chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Smathers, and we have with us the chairman of the full committee. Are there any questions you wish to ask?

Senator SMATHERS. No questions.

Senator PURTELL. We also have Senator Lausche here as a member of the committee.

Senator LAUSCHE. No questions.

Senator PURTELL. Senator Magnuson?

Senator MAGNUSON. No, Mr. Chairman. I ask this only for information. I am a little bit confused in the last part of Mr. Oren's statement. You claim you are limited now in your scope to operate as a contract carrier. Why would converting you to a common carrier limit you more than you are limited now?

Mr. OREN. We are a contract carrier. They have been limiting us by interpretation, by modification, by clarification, and as a contract carrier they say that we should only be able to haul

Senator MAGNUSON. I understand that. How would that limitation be changed? Would you be more strictly limited as a common carrier?

Mr. OREN. We would be in competition, hauling commodity X only from St. Paul to Chicago, and in hauling that commodity X the others could haul Y and Z, and they could establish a rate on X which could be an arbitrary rate.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, aren't you assuming if you become a common carrier you would be just as limited in scope as you now are as a contract carrier?

Mr. OREN. Yes. We would only be permitted to do-we would not be a specialized service. We would be a common carrier, limited only to haul certain commodities in competition with those who could haul all commodities.

Senator MAGNUSON. But you are assuming that you would be so limited. Why do you assume that?

Mr. OREN. That is the way they have this thing set up.
Senator MAGNUSON. But you could apply.

Mr. OREN. Then you have to prove convenience and necessity, and it is an impossibility to prove convenience and necessity.

Senator MAGNUSON. You are not necessarily limited, but you think the practical effect of the law would be that you would be limited

as you are now.

Mr. OREN. With 40 carriers operating between St. Paul

Senator MAGNUSON. I know that. You are assuming, from practical experience?

Mr. ÓREN. It is well known. There isn't any question about it.

Senator MAGNUSON. But you do have the right under the ICC Act, if you are made a common carrier, to make application and to receive a certificate of convenience and necessity to haul more commodities and not be as limited?

Mr. OREN. If I can prove convenience and necessity.
Senator MAGNUSON. I say you have that right.

Mr. OREN. To apply.

Senator MAGNUSON. To make application, to have a broader scope of your operation than you are now limited to by contract.

Mr. OREN. But it is not the policy of the Commission.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, you say as a practical effect that is what would happen?

Mr. OREN. That is right. That is the true effect of it. That is the true outcome.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, that is an assumption, but you are experienced in this business and probably your assumption is correct.

Mr. OREN. I am pretty sure of that. I don't think anyone who has had any dealings with the Interstate Commerce Commission or anyone who has been at all in the motor-carrier business would even attempt to deny that. I think they will concede that.

Senator PURTELL. Are there further questions, Senator Magnuson? Senator MAGNUSON. NO.

Senator PURTELL. Senator Lausche?

Senator LAUSCHE. As a contract carrier, you do have available the information of what the common carriers charge in conveying certain merchandise?

Mr. OREN. Well, I do have it, but these tariffs that they draw up are almost too much for me after 30 years.

Senator LAUSCHE. Anyhow, that information which has been filed is available to you?

Mr. OREN. Yes.

Senator LAUSHE. And you are of the opinion that what you, in fact, charge should not become general knowledge, and that you should be