The removal of price controls in 1946 sent wholesale prices shooting upward. In three years the wholesale index had risen to 236.4. The ICC made valiant efforts to keep up with these skyrocketing prices. In June 1946 the Commission approved the first of a series of ten general rate increases embodied in four major proceedings." By September 1951 the cumulative percentage increases granted by the Commission amounted to an increase of 67.6 percent in basic freight rates over the June 1946 level. The actual increase in the rate level from 1946 to 1950 was 35.6 percent. The drastic rise in wholesale prices has made it impossible for the Commission to maintain the 1945 cushion between prices and rates. The Commission has, however, been successful in preserving the 1913 relationship in 1949 the rate index was 231.2, the price index 222.1; in 1950 the rate index was 229.5 and the price index 231.4. Considering the normal tendency of regulated and administered prices to lag far behind violent fluctuations in the general price level, the action of the Commission in moving rates up along with prices is eloquent testimony to its sensitivity to railroad interests. The speed of the ICC in increasing freight rates during this period contrasts with its tardiness during the World War I inflation and has evoked praise from the railroads and envy from other carrier groups regulated by less considerate commissions.4

The responsiveness of the ICC to rail freight rate demands since it became dependent upon railroad support has been paralleled by its acquiescence to railroad requests for passenger fare, Pullman charge, express rate, and mail pay increases. Only rarely since the middle thirties has the Commission refused a petition for increased passenger fares, and since 1940 the Commission has a perfect record of giving the roads exactly what they have asked for in important passenger fare cases.' As a result, coach fares in the East have gone up 68.75 percent and parlor car fares 50 percent since 1940. This has been enough to place them in some instances above the competitive air fares. Comparable increases requested by the railroads have been approved by the Commission in various other areas of rail pricing.7

75

In granting railroad requests for rate and fare increases the ICC has repeatedly come into conflict with other government agencies and nonrailroad groups. These fall into three main categories.

13 Increased Railway Rates, Fares, and Charges, 1942, 248 I. C. C. 545 (1942), authorized a six percent increase, which was suspended, 255 I. C. C. 357 (1943), and restored, 264 I. C. C. 695 (1946). See also Increased Railway Rates, Fares, and Charges, 1946, 264 I. C. C. 695 (1946), 266 I. C. C. 537 (1946); Increased Freight Rates, 1947, 269 I. c. c. 33 (1947), 270 I. C. C. 81 (1947), 270 I. C. C. 93 (1948), 270 I. C. C. 403 (1948): Increased Freight Rates, 1948, 272 I. C. C. 695 (1948), 276 I. C. C. 9 (1949); Increased Freight Rates, 1951, 280 I. C. C. 179, mimeographed report, Aug. 2, 1951. The ICC has not been unaware of the harmful effects of its policy: "One consequence of the cumulative rate increases of the past 3 years undoubtedly has been a disturbance of many processes of production and distribution with permanent changes in the economic map of the country, although other factors have also contributed to the same result." 63 ICC Ann. Rep. 2-3 (1949).

74 Hearings on National Transportation Policy, supra, note 27, at 82-3, 91-3, 440-1; Hearings on Domestic Land and Water Transportation, supra, note 21, at 209, 257-9. For the dissident voice of Robert R. Young, see Hearings on National Transportation Policy, supra, at 320, and 12 Law & Contemp. Prob. 627-9; for the envious voice of W. A. Patterson, president of United Air Lines, see 49 Aviation Week 43 (Nov. 8, 1948); Stewardship of the Airlines by the CAB. 15 J. of Air L. & Commerce 391-2 (1948).

Passenger Fares and Surcharges, 214 I. C. C. 174 (1936); Eastern Passenger Fares in Coaches, 227 I. C. C. 17 (1938), 227 I. C. C. 685 (1938), 237 I. C. C. 271 (1940); Increased Railway Rates, Fares, and Charges, 1942, 248 I. C. C. 545 (1942), 259 I. C. C. 159 (1944), 266 I. C. C. 537, 603-6 (1946); Increased Passenger Fares, New Haven Railroad, 268 I. C. C. 303 (1947); Increased Passenger Fares, Eastern Railroads, 268 I. C. C. 457 (1947); Increased Passenger Fares, Southern Railroads, 269 I. C. C. 240 (1947); Increased Passenger Fares, Western Railroads, 269 I. C. C. 281 (1947); Increased Coach Fares on Western Railroads, 269 I. C. C. 632 (1947): Increased Coach Fares, New Haven Railroad, 269 I. C. C. 291 (1947); Increased Fares, Eastern Railroads, 1948, 272 I. C. C. 17 (1948): Increased Fares, Eastern Railroads, 1949, 276 I. C. C. 433 (1949). It is easier for the Commission to approve fare increases than to approve rate increases because the political strength of the opposition is weaker against the former than against the latter.

76 Express Rates, 1938-1939, 231 I. C. C. 471 (1939); Express LCL Emergency Charges, 253 I. C. C. 339 (1946); Increased Express Rates and Charges, 1946, 266 I. C. C. 369 (1946), 269 I. C. C. 161 (1947), 273 I. C. C. 231 (1948); Increased Express Rates and Charges, 1949, 277 I. C. C. 249 (1950); Increased Passenger Fares, Eastern Railroads, 269 I. C. C. 87 (1947); Commutation Fares between New Orleans and Gulf Coast, 270 I. C. C. 281 (1948); Jersey Central Commutation Fares, 273 I. C. C. 693 (1949); Weehawken Ferry Fares and Charges, 277 I. C. C. 95 (1950); Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. Passenger Fares, 1949, 277 I. C. C. 313 (1950); N. J.-N. Y. Commutation Fares, 277 I. C. C. 459 (1950); Commutation Fares, Eastern Railroads, 278 I. C. C. 491 (1950); Railway Mail Pay, 269 I. C. C. 357 (1947); 64 ICC Ann. Rep. 44 (1950).

78

Shipper interests.-These include both private groups and government agencies. The Department of Agriculture has regularly appeared before the Commission in behalf of agricultural interests and either opposed the procedure used by the Commission in considering the railroad request or, as in most cases, opposed outright an increase in rates." In 1948 the Department attempted without success to get the ICC to investigate the economy and efficiency of the railroads with a view to determining whether the plea for increased rates was only the result of poor management. Other government agencies which have appeared in opposition to increased rates include the Tennessee Valley Authority, Consumers Counsel for the Bituminous Coal Commission, Office of Solid Fuels Coordinator, General Services Administration, Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior." In a 1951 rate case the Attorney General appeared on behalf of the United States in opposition to the interim increase.80 Price stabilization interests. During and immediately after the Second World War the OPA and the Economic Stabilization Agency frequently came into conflict with the ICC. Under the provisions of the price-control acts the authority of these agencies did not extend to prices otherwise subject to federal regulation. The OPA was successful in 1943 in getting the ICC to suspend its previously granted six percent freight rate increase but not in securing the removal of the ten percent increase in passenger fares granted at the same time. Subsequently the OPA tried unsuccessfully to get the Commission to cancel the suspended rates, and in 1946 unsuccessfully opposed further rate increases. Throughout most of the war there was a running battle between the OPA and the ICC over the extent to which the ICC in enforcing the Interstate Commerce Act was bound by the policies of the price-control acts. A series of Commission decisions and court cases on this question was finally resolved in favor of the ICC. During the present period of price controls the Office of Price Stabilization has resumed the battle with the Commission. It unsuccessfully opposed the 1951 freight rate increases and has also appeared in opposition to a commuter fare rise.

82

84

State and local interests.-The ICC has generally been much more favorable to rate and fare increases than have state and local regulatory bodies. Consequently the Commission has frequently come into conflict with such agencies over the extent to which Commission-approved increases for interstate traffic should be extended to intrastate traffic. Under the law the Commission can prescribe rates upon the latter when it finds that the existing rates cause undue, unjust, or unreasonable disadvantage to or discrimination against interstate

Ex Parte No. 148, Increased Railway Rates, Fares, and Charges, 1942, 248 I. C. C. 545 (1942), 264 I. C. C. 695, 717-20 (1946), 266 I. C. C. 537, 554-7 (1946); Ex Parte No. 163, Increased Express Rates and Charges, 1946, 266 I. C. C. 369, 376-7 (1946); Ex Parte No. 168, Increased Freight Rates, 1948, 272 I. C. C. 695, 703-7 (1948); Ex Parte No. 169, Increased Express Rates and Charges, 1949, 277 I. C. C. 249, 266-9 (1950); Ex Parte No. 175, Increased Freight Rates, 1951, 280 I. C. C. 179, 188 (1951). Statutory authority for the intervention of the Secretary of Agriculture is $ 201 Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 36 (1938). See also 95 Cong. Rec. A-2002-5 (1949).

78 Ex Parte No. 168, Increased Freight Rates, 1948, 272 I. C. C. 695, 705-6 (1948), 276 I. C. C. 9, 24-31 (1949).

7 See notes 72, 73, 76, supra.

80 Memorandum brief of the United States and the Attorney General (mimeo). Ex Parte No. 175, Increased Freight Rates, 1951, 280 I. C. C. 179 (1951).

Increased Rates, Fares, and Charges, 1942, 248 I. C. C. 545, 571-4 (1942), 255 I. C. C. 375 (1943). The suspension of the rate increase did not hurt the railroads, which during the war earned higher rates of return on their investment than they had for twenty years previously. Despite this, the members of the Commission were initially divided evenly and Commissioner Eastman had to be recalled temporarily from his position as Director of the Office of Defense Transportation to break the tie. See 114 Railway Age 783 (April 17. 1943).

Ibid. Ex Parte No. 148, Increased Railway Rates, Fares, and Charges, 1942, 259 I. C. C. 159 (1944), 264 I. C. C. 695 (1946), 266 I. C. C. 537 (1946).

Ibid., 248 I. C. C. 545 (1942), 255 I. C. C. 357 (1943); Increases in Texas Rates, Fares, and Charges, 253 I. C. C. 723 (1942); Mineral Wool from Mo. to Official Territory, 256 I. C. C. 208 (1943); Tar in the Southeast, 258 I. C. C. 403 (1944); Increases in Utah Freight Rates and Charges, 255 I. C. C. 92 (1943) Paints from Minn. to Colo., 256 I. C. C. 127 (1943); Apples, Transcontinental Eastbound, 258 I. C. C. 177 (1944); Rates on Crushed Stone, etc., in Ohio, 259 I. C. C. 423 (1945); LCL Rates between Ark. and La., 258 I. C. C. 525 (1944); Terminal Charges at Pacific Points, 255 I. C. C. 673 (1943); Passenger Fares of M. & M. R. Co., 256 I. C. C. 269 (1943), rev'd Jersey City v. United States, 54 F. Supp. 315 (D. N. J.), rev'd ICC v. Jersey City, 322 U. S. 503 (1944).

Increased Freight Rates, 1951, 280 I. C. C. 179 (1951), mimeographed opinion, Aug. 2, 1951, sheets 45-7; N. Y. Times, Aug. 9, 1951, p. 31, col. 8; id., Aug. 10, 1951, p. 17, col. 8; id., Sept. 10, 1951, p. 30, col. 6.

commerce. State regulatory bodies have jealously defended their jurisdictions against the Commission's efforts to intrude thereon for the benefit of the railroads.80

Monopoly and Antitrust

The Commission received its principal powers with respect to combinations and competition in the Transportation Act of 1920. Consequently it was only rarely 87 Section 407, Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 480-2 (1920).

88

that it acted in this area while dependent upon shipper and public support. In the few instances in which it did consider problems of monopoly prior to 1920 it was vigorously critical of the railroads. Its interpretations of the Transportation Act of 1920, on the other hand, have always been colored by its dependence upon railroad support. The Commission has advanced the individual and collective interests of the railroads by facilitating the reduction of competition among them and by aiding their development of cooperative devices designed to increase group solidarity.

In carrying out this necessary consequence of its railroad affiliation, the Commission has repeatedly come into conflict with the Antitrust Division and other groups interested in the maintenance of competition. The Commission early adopted the views of the railroads that collective price-fixing through rate bureaus and conferences was not only necessary and legal but also highly desirable. This position conflicts with judicial interpretations of the Sherman Act holding (1) that the act is applicable to carriers regulated by the Commission, and (2) that cooperative price-fixing by competing companies is per se a violation of the antitrust laws." It is, hence, significant that of eleven major antitrust proceedings instituted between 1935 and 1948 by the Department of Justice against carriers subject to ICC regulation, only one, which was against a motor carrier rate bureau, was based upon information referred to the Department by the ICC. In another suit, also against a motor carrier, there was "close cooperation" between the Division and the Commission in the investigation preceding the indictment. In regard to the railroads, however, the Commission has not turned over to the Department evidence of antitrust violations uncovered in the performance of its duties. At least some members of the Commission, for

91

85 Section 13 (4), Interstate Commerce Act. 41 Stat. 484 (1920).

80 Increases in Ariz. Freight Rates and Charges, 270 I. C. C. 105 (1948), 272 I. C. C. 507 (1948); Increases in Tenn. Freight Rates and Charges, 272 I. C. C. 625 (1948); Texas Intrastate Rates, 273 I. C. C. 749 (1949), 274 I. C. Č. 545 (1949); Miss. Intrastate Express Rates and Charges, 273 I. C. C. 777 (1949), 278 I. C. C. 84 (1950); Increases in Fla. Intrastate Rates, 278 I. C. C. 41 (1950); Kan. Intrastate Rates, 277 I. C. C. 21 (1950). Alabama has given the Commission the most trouble. Ala. Intrastate Fares, 258 I. C. C. 133 (1944), rev'd, Ala. v. United States, 325 U. S. 535 (1945); Ala. Intrastate Fares, 1948, 273 I. C. C. 627 (1949); Increases in Ala. Freight Rates and Charges, 274 I. C. C. 439 (1949); Ala. Intrastate Express Rates and Charges, 277 I. C. C. 712 (1950); Ala. Intrastate Rates and Charges, 1950, 278 I. C. C. 605 (1950); Note, 60 Yale L. J. 356-62 (1951). The railroads have generally favored the growth of ICC authority at the expense of state regulatory agencies. See e. g., Hearings on Domestic Land and Water Transportation, supra, note 21, at 275-7.

88 See, e. g., In re Financial Investigation of the N. Y., N. H. & Hartford R. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 32 (1914), especially at pp. 65-70 for a hard-hitting and incisive attack on the New Haven's "policy of transportation monopoly." Unlike subsequent instances the Commission in this case cooperated with the Department of Justice and furnished the latter with a complete record of its hearings. The Department initiated an antitrust suit resulting in a consent decree, Unlike States v. N. Y., N. H. & Hartford R. R. Co., 1 Fed. Antitrust Cas. (D. & J.) 529 (1914). See also Wiprud, Justice in Transportation 51-3 (1945).

89 In re Transcontinental Freight Bureau, 77 I. C. C. 252 (1923); Rates between Ariz., Calif., N. M., and Texas, 3 M. C. C. 505 (1937). See also 50 ICC Ann. Rep. 74 (1936); Wiprud, Justice in Transportation 96 et seq. (1945); Drayton, Transportation Under Two Masters 51-3 (1946).

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290 (1897): United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505 (1898): United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U. S. 392 (1927); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150 (1940).

91 United States v. Middlewest M. Frt. Bur., Crim. No. 9905 (D. Colo. 1944); Hearings on S. 942, supra, note 21, at 267-9; 58 ICC Ann. Rep. 30 (1944). Among the other cases instituted against carriers by the Antitrust Division are United States v. Ass'n of American Railroads, Civil No. 4551 (D. D. C. 1939); United States v. Pullman Co., 50 F. Supp. 123 (E. D. Pa., 1943), 53 F. Supp. 908 (E. D. Pa., 1944), 55 F. Supp. 985 (E. D. Pa., 1944), 64 F. Supp. 108 (E. D. Pa., 1945). 330 U. S. 806 (1947), rehearing denied, 331 U. S. 865 (1947); United States v. Allied Van Lines, Civil No. 44-C-30 (N. D. Ill., 1946); United States v. Freightways, Civil No. 22075-R (N. D. Calif., 1944); United States v. N. Y. Central R. Co., Civil No. 24-930 (S. D. N. Y., 1944); United States v. Ass'n American Railroads, Civil No. 246 (D. Neb., 1944) United States v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Civil No. 2567 (N. D. Calif., 1945); United States v. North Coast Transportation Co., Civil No. 1675 (W. D. Wash., 1946); United States v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Civil No. 1155 (D. Del., 1948); United States v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., Crim. No. 47665 (W. D. Wash., 1948).

92 United States v. Freightways, Civil No. 22075-R (N. D. Calif., 1944); Transport Topics, Feb. 9, 1942; 112 Railway Age 353 (Feb. 7, 1942).

13

Members of the

instance, were aware in 1939 of the activities of the railroads and motor carriers in Central Freight Association Territory which became the basis of a grand jury investigation, subsequently terminated without indictment because of the war." Of considerably greater significance was Commission awareness, if not sponsorship, of the Western Commissioner Agreement in 1932 among the major railroads operating west of the Mississippi. This established elaborate machinery for the settlement of rate disputes among the participant carriers. ICC were aware of the existence of the agreement during the eleven years it was in force." No attempt was made, however, to discover its provisions in detail or to require it to be filed with the Commission in accordance with Sec. The Justice Department consequently 6 (5) of the Interstate Commerce Act. did not learn of it until 1943. It requested a copy from the railroads on April 9th of that year. It got a copy on April 14th. The same day the agreement was filed with the ICC. Nine days later the participating railroads canceled it. This agreement subsequently became the basis of the Department's Lincoln suit against the Association of American Railroadsfi the Western Association of Railway Executives, and forty-seven individual carriers.

96

Going beyond noncooperation, the Commission has in some instances positively affected the conclusion of antitrust suits by the Government. Since it began to become dependent upon railroad support the Commission has in effect reversed successful antitrust suits by approving under Section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, and thereby exempting from the antitrust laws, practices which had previously been found to be in violation of those laws. Similarly, in the recent Pullman case the Commission approved the sale of the Pullman operating company to the railroads over the objections of the Antitrust Division." Also, the approval by the Commission of the Western Traffic Association Agreement after the passage of the Reed-Bullwinkle Bill has obstructed the Justice Department's suit against the western railroads."

During the Second World War the ICC and its affiliated agency, the Office of Defense Transportation, endeavored to protect railroad rate bureaus from antitrust prosecution. The Small Business Concerns Act of 1942 authorized the chairman of the War Production Board, after consultation with the Attorney General, to certify to the latter that specified acts of private concerns were approved by him and were "requisite to the prosection of the war." Such acts would then be immune from attack under the antitrust laws." During 1942 and 1943 the ICC and the ODT engaged in an administrative battle with the Antitrust Division to get the chairman of the WPB to exempt rate bureaus from antitrust prosecutions. The specific issue between the two agencies was whether certain restrictions regulating the practices of the bureaus and proposed by the Division should In be written into the WPB certificate. In a much broader sense, the issue was one of competition versus regulated monopoly in railroad rate-making.' the end, the two transportation agencies were successful and the certificate was issued with the inclusion of only one minor provision recommended by the Division.' After the termination of hostilities, the expiration date of the certificate was first fixed for October 1, 1945. However, at the request of ICC Commission Johnson, director of the ODT, the life of the certificate was extended another year. Despite renewed requests for further extension a year later, the Civilian Production Administrator permitted it to go out of effect on Oct. 1. 1946 102

101

Hearings on S. 942. supra, note 21, at 464-5.

100

94 Id. at 184-5, 831-2; 94 Cong. Rec. 6658 (1938); Drayton, Transportation Under Two Masters 77-80 (1946).

5 Hearings on S. 942, supra, note 21, at 132-9.

98 United States v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 U. S. 214 (1922), 290 Fed. 443 (D. Utah, 1923). Control of Central Pacific by Southern Pacific, 76 I. C. C. 508 (1923). See also United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 254 U S. 255 (1920); Control of D., S. and S. R. R. by Lehigh Valley R. R., 86 I. C. C. 567 (1924).

97 United States v. Pullman Co., 50 F. Supp. 123 (E. D. Pa., 1943), 53 F. Supp. 908 (E. D. Pa., 1944), 55 F. Supp. 985 (E. D. Pa., 1944), 64 F. Supp. 108 (E. D. Pa., 1945), 330 U. S. 806 (1947), rehearing denied, 331 U. S. 865 (1947); Proposed Pooling of Railroad Earnings and Service Involved in the Operation of the Pullman Co. under Railroad The Commission on one occasion at least has taken United States v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., Civil Ownership, 268 I. C. C. 473 (1947). similar action in regard to motor carriers. No. 44-C-30 (N. D. Ill.. 1946); Allied Van Lines-Purchase-Evanston Fireproof Warehouse, 40 M. C. C. 557 (1946); Allied Van Lines-Purchase-Allen, 45 M. C. C. 751 (1947) Allied Van Lines-Purchase-Johnson, 50 M. C. C. 273 (1948). Transport Topics, Nov. 29, 1948; CCH Trade Reg. Rep. 11 61, 168.

:

56 Stat. 351, 357 (1942).

100 See Hearings on S. 942, supra, note 21, at 259-60.

101 For documents bearing on this administrative controversy, see id. at 241-57.
102 60 ICC Ann. Rep. 53 (1946); Transport Topics, Oct. 7, 1946.

In addition to this administrative battle, the ICC lobbied before Congress for legislation to exempt permanently the rate bureaus from the danger of prosecution. Such a bill was introduced by Senator Wheeler in 1943 at the request of the ICC.10 The Justice Department immediately proposed that the same restrictions be written into this measure that it had unsuccessfully urged be included in the WPB certificate. This resulted in a conflict between the two agencies and, since with the issuance of the certificate the issue became temporarily dormant, the legislation was not pushed at that time. Subsequently in the 79th and 80th Congresses the ICC and the railroads renewed their efforts, largely as a result of the Lincoln suit and the decision of the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad.104 The Commission in its annual report issued at the beginning of 1945 urged the amendment of the Interstate Commerce Act to authorize itself to regulate carrier associations and to exempt them from the antitrust laws.105 Shortly thereafter Representative Bulwinkle introduced a bill designed to accomplish this purpose. The bill was endorsed by the Commission with suggestions for minor changes,100 and ICC representatives testified in its favor at the hearings." The need for this legislation likewise became more urgent from the Commission's viewpoint when the WPB exemptions certificate expired in 1946.108 In the second session of the 79th Congress and in the 80th Congress the Commission renewed its endorsement of legislation along the lines of the Bulwinkle bill, and in 1948 it approved the conference report of the bill in the form in which it was finally enacted over the President's veto.'

107

109

Under Sections 5 and 5a of the Interstate Commerce Act, the ICC may approve poolings of carriers, consolidations, mergers, acquisitions of control, and agreements relating to rate and charges, and thereby exempt carriers participating in such actions from the antitrust laws. The policy of the ICC in enforcing these sections has generally coincided with the views of the railroads. It is rare that applications to purchase, merge, or lease railroad lines or to acquire ownership of such lines or to enter into operating agreements with such lines are turned down by the Commission. Applications to permit interlocking directorates are also almost invariably approved.110 In one significant case concerning the consolidation of eight motor carriers in which it was alleged that there was a railroad interest, the Commission rejected the arguments of the Antitrust Division, the Department of Agriculture and other groups that the Commission ought not approve transactions which would result in an unreasonable restraint of competition within the meaning of the antitrust laws. The Supreme Court, on appeal, sustained the Commission, in a divided decision." In applying the provisions of the Reed-Bulwinkle Bill the ICC has also followed a lenient policy and interpreted broadly the scope of the permissible exemption from the antitrust laws."

112

Rail-Motor Competition

111

The affiliation of the ICC with the railroads has resulted in an ambiguous relationship between the Commission and the principal railroad-competitive group, the motor carriers. On the one hand, there is a close affiliation between the motor carrier industry and the ICC's Bureau of Motor Carriers, with the two cooperating in the enforcement of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. The Bureau has consequently been praised by the motor carriers and criticized by the rail

103 S. 942, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1943); 114 Railway Age 1187 (June 12, 1943). 104 324 U. S. 439 (1945); 91 Cong. Rec. 11749 (1945).

105 58 ICC Ann. Rep. 30-1, 106 (1944).

106 59 ICC Ann. Rep. 32-3 (1945).

107 Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee pursuant to H. R. 2536, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 14 (1945).

108 60 ICC Ann. Rep. 53 (1946).

100 61 ICC Ann. Rep. 66 (1947); Transport Topics, April 29, 1946, Jan. 27, 1947; 94 Cong. Rec. 6642 (1948).

110 See 62 ICC Ann. Rep. 58, 77 (1948); 58 id. at 43 (1944), 59 id. at 56 (1945, 60 id. at 63 (1946), 61 id. at 73 (1947), 63 id. at 77 (1949), 64 id. at 75 (1950), also, Commission on Organization, op. cit., supra, note 5, at III-15-18.

111 Associated Transport, Inc.-Control and Consolidation Arrow Carrier Corp., 38 M. C. C. 137 (1942); McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 48 F. Supp. 933 (S. D. Ñ. Y. 1942), 321 U. S. 67 (1944). Previously the Commission had refused to approve the consolidation of a much larger number of trucking firms. Transport Company-Control Arrow Corp., 36 M. C. C. 61 (1941).

112 Western Traffic Ass'n-Agreement, 267 I. C. C. 183 (1949) Eastern Railroads— Agreements, 277 I. C. C. 279 (1950): Ass'n of American Railroads, Per Diem, Mileage Demurrage, and Storage-Agreement, 277 I. C. C. 413 (1950); North Atlantic Port Railroads, Tidewater Coal Agreement, 278 I. C. C. 525 (1950).