about is to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of a regulatory tribunal such as the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The control of the social and economic relations of mankind in our day and age will require probably more administrative tribunals instead of fewer. If we are to have in this country a continuance of the rule of law, those tribunals must attain the same respect that is given our courts. They must exercise their powers, to use again the language of the Supreme Court, in the coldest neutrality. The parties whose work brings them before the Commission believe that these results cannot be achieved unless the Commission's independence is preserved and maintained.

It was said by Judge Cooley, the Commission's first chairman, that he exalted the Commission, made its foundations broad and strong, and made it a tribunal of justice in a field and for a class of questions where all was chaos before. The Commission has pointed the way to the extension of the rule of law and order over questions which a few decades ago were thought to be above and beyond that rule. The achievements of the Commission and the reasons for those achievements should not be ignored in our judgment in now considering the extent to which the Commission should be subjected to Executive control.

The Commission, acting of course under the direction and supervision of Congress, has won the public confidence under its present organization and the present control that it has of its organization, its functions, the division of its work, its personnel, and the appointments of the heads of its bureaus and divisions.

The practitioners before the Commission submit that the proposed bill should be rewritten so as to exempt the Interstate Commerce Commission from any of its provisions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Mr. C. A. Miller.

STATEMENT OF C. A. MILLER, GENERAL COUNSEL, THE AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

Mr. MILLER. My name is C. A. Miller. I am general counsel of the American Short Line Railroad Association, with offices at 425 Union Trust Building, Washington, D. C. All the professional services for which I am compensated are rendered to that association.

The Anerican Short Line Railroad Association is a voluntary, nonprofit association and has a membership of 319 short-line railroads, located in practically every State in the Union. I am appearing before your committee today by authority and direction of our board of directors, which is composed of 35 members, representing all sections of the United States.

I am also a member of the special committee on reorganization of the Interstate Commerce Commission created by the Association of Practitioners before the Interstate Commerce Commission, but other members of that committee are presenting the view of the Association of Practitioners. I have been an officer of that association practically ever since its organization, in 1929.

With what I hope is becoming modesty, I may say, also that for the past 10 years or more I have devoted a great deal of time outside

9757-37-16

of my regular office hours to a study of the Interstate Commerce Commission and its work, and to the Interstate Commerce Act and its interpretation. As a result of these studies, I have written a book and several Law Review articles dealing with the Interstate Commerce Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

On March 31 and April 1, there was quite a commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I was chairman of the Committee on Semi-Centennial of the Interstate Commerce Commission created by the Association of Practitioners before the Interstate Commerce Commission. As a part of that commemoration our committee directed and staged a golden jubilee dinner on March 31. On the following day the Interstate Commerce Commission had exercises commemorative of the event which consisted very largely of addresses, some of them being made by Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. I was also a member of the special committee of the board of editors of the George Washington Law Review which directed the publication of a special issue of that Review commemorating the occasion. To this issue of the George Washington Law Review I contributed biographical sketches of all of the men who had served on the Interstate Commerce Commission during its first 50 years, these sketches having been prepared from original research.

These statements are made in order to give you, in a general way, my background, and to show you that I have both a professional and personal interest in the subject which is before you for consideration. I hope it will serve to qualify me to counsel with you for a time today with respect to the bill which you are now considering, namely, S. 2700.

We view this bill as important as any bill which has been before the Congress during this session, and we urge that it be given the serious consideration which it should have.

I shall not attempt any detailed analysis of the bill, but I would like to call your attention to the essential elements of it so far as it relates to the independent agencies of the Government. By independent agencies I refer generally to those agencies which are not a part of any of the executive departments of the Government.

I would like also to make it perfectly clear that what I say is not intended to in any way impugn the motives of any person. I want to stick to the facts, so far as I purport to discuss facts, and to express my professional and personal opinion so far as nonfactual matters are concerned.

The bill, as drawn, goes much further than appears on its face. It is a masterpiece of legislative craftsmanship so far as it permits the accomplishment of things not specified in it.

Section 1 of the bill directs the President, from time to time, to investigate the organization of the various agencies of the Government, and to determine what changes therein are necessary to accomplish any of the purposes enumerated in that section.

By the terms of section 2 (a) the President is authorized whenever he shall find and declare that any such contemplated action is necessary to accomplish any of the purposes set forth in section 1, to issue an Executive order, and thereby to do any of the following things:

1. Transfer or retransfer the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of any other

agency.

2. Regroup, coordinate, consolidate, reorganize, or segregate the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof.

3. Abolish the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof.

4. Prescribe the name and functions of any agency affected by any such Executive order, and the title, powers, and duties of its executive head.

* *

This is followed by a provision in section 2 (b) which, on the face of it, is a limitation on the powers of the President, but which seems to be more of a limitation in form than in substance. Section 2 (b) states that nothing therein shall be construed to authorize the President to abolish any * * * independent establishment * This, however, applies to only two of the four things specified in section 2 (a) which the President may do. On the face of it, the powers of the President are limited insofar as transferring the whole or any part of any agency or the functions thereof to the jurisdiction and control of any other agency, and to the abolition of the whole or any part of any agency.

This leaves wholly untouched the power of the President to regroup, coordinate, consolidate, reorganize, or segregate the whole or any part of any agency, and to prescribe the name and the functions of any agency affected by an Executive order issued pursuant to this bill.

In dealing with this subject I shall limit myself to the Interstate Commerce Commission, but what I shall say with respect to that Commission applies with equal effect to the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other similar agencies.

The President is left wholly unrestricted in his power to reorganize the Interstate Commerce Commission. He might conclude to transfer or retransfer various of its functions from one bureau to another, and if he did so, so far as this bill is concerned, the members of the Commission could do nothing about it.

Further, the President is left wholly free to prescribe the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission and even to change its name. He has unlimited power in this respect.

Perhaps I would not be so much concerned about this matter were it not for the fact that when this bill was introduced it was announced that it specifically negatived any authority in the President to abolish or transfer any of the functions or activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission and other like independent agencies of the Government. This statement does not square with the terms of the bill. The proposal to establish the Interstate Commerce Commission was before the Congress for a number of years before it was accomplished. One of the reasons for the delay was the differences of opinion between the Senate and the House of Representatives with respect to the nature of the Commission and its powers and duties. The recital of this controversy in detail is historically interesting, but not necessary to a consideration of this bill. Suffice it to say that the Commission has from its inception, and by the terms of the Act to Regulate Commerce (now the Interstate Commerce Act) been an independent establishment. It is true that for the first 2 years of its existence it reported to the Secretary of the Interior. That, however, was changed in 1889, and it has been wholly independent since that time. The Interstate Commerce Commission is, and always has been, essentially an arm of Congress. It has been variously referred to as

the "child" of Congress and as the "eyes and ears" of Congress so far as transportation is concerned.

Although the Commission performs a multitude of functions, one of its principal duties is the regulation of rates. That is and always has been regarded as a legislative function. Congress simply delegated to the Interstate Commerce Commission the duty of doing what the Congress did not itself have the time to do, although it had that duty. imposed upon it. Congress lays down the policy in broad principles and leaves it to the Interstate Commerce Commission to carry out the congressional mandates.

The Commission performs many other duties as an agency of the Congress, not the least of which is the conducting of investigations for the Congress.

The Congress has broad powers of investigation as to matters that may be the subject of legislation. It has been said by the courts that legislation may begin where the evil begins. Congress frequently determines these evils by means of these investigations. It, however, does not have the time to conduct all of the investigations necessary, and it has on numerous occasions directed the Interstate Commerce Commission to make investigations for it, and to report to the Congress its (the Commission's) recommendations for legislation.

I want to take occasion to place in the record of these hearings, at this point, a list of some of the investigations which the Interstate Commerce Commission has conducted by direction of the Congress. They are:

1. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 222 of October 30, 1919, the Commission ascertained the facts in connection with existing or prospective ownership or control of railway lines in the United States by the Government of Canada. Report was made to the Senate on December 3, 1919. (See Annual Report I. C. C., 1920, p. 38.)

2. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 267 of January 16, 1920, the Commission investigated living conditions of trainmen who are compelled to lie over at terminals between trips, and as to the feasibility of the railroads companies furnishing suitable accomodations in the circumstances. Report was made to the Senate on August 3, 1920. (See Living Conditions of Railway Trainmen, 58 I. C. C. 761).

3. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 362 of May 14, 1920, the Commission conducted an inquiry as to the causes of freight congestion in the principal cities of the United States and as to the measures that have been taken or may be taken to relieve the situation. Report was made to the Senate on December 9, 1920. (See Annual Report, I. C. C., 1921, p. 29.)

4. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 412, the Commission conducted an investigation to ascertain the cost of railroad fuel for the year 1920 over such cost for the year 1919. Report was made to the Senate on April 4, 1921. (See Annual Report I. C. C., 1921, p. 30.)

5. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 194 of December 15, 1921, an investigation was made as to the organization, management, and control of the Trans-Continental Freight Bureau. Report was made to the Senate on February 3, 1923. (See Trans-Continental Freight Bureau, 77 I. C. C. 252.)

6. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 418 of January 23, 1923, an inquiry was conducted as to the feasibility and advisability of ordering an embargo upon shipments of anthracite coal to foreign countries,

and as to the steps taken or which might be taken for the establishment of transportation priorities in equitable disposition of such coal, and for the prevention of its purchase or sale at unreasonably high prices. Report was made to the Senate on February 28, 1923. (See Annual Report I. C. C., 1923, p. 31.)

7. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 414 of January 20, 1923, an investigation was conducted as to the extent to which the railroads serving the Northwest Pacific States failed to supply adequate transportation facilities during the crop season of 1922, and made an analysis of the causes and a suggestion of remedies designed to prevent a repetition of such failure or inadequacy of transportation facilities. Report was made to the Senate on February 4, 1924. (See Transportation Facilities in Northwest Pacific States, 87 I. C. C. 472.)

8. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 472 of March 3, 1923, the Commission reported to the Senate, on February 11, 1924, on the administration of the Fourth Section of the Interstate Commerce Act. (See Administration of Fourth Section, 87 I. C. C. 564.)

9. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 199 of March 28, 1924, the Commission conducted an inquriy as to the assessed valuation, as for taxation purposes for the year 1923, of all the property of each of the railroads in the United States acting as a common carrier. Report was made to the Senate on February 9, 1925. (See Annual Report, I. C. C. 1925, p. 34.)

10. Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 17, Seventieth Congress, first session, and Senate Resolution No. 192, Seventy-fourth Congress, second session, the Commission, through Commissioner Aitchison, prepared for publication, as a Senate document, a manuscript covering the various acts administered by the Commission and related provisions of law, annotated with the decisions of the Commission and the Courts, the Commission's regulations, and so forth. This is an eight-volume compilation, known as Intereste Commerce Acts Annotated. (S. Doc. No. 166, 70th Cong., 1st sess., five volumes, and S. Doc. No. 139, 73d Cong., 2d sess., 3 volumes.)

11. Pursuant to Public Resolution No. 13 of March 15, 1932, the Commission conducted an investigation as to the effect upon operation, service, and expenses of applying the principle of the 6-hour day in the employment of railroad labor. Report was made to the Congress on December 13, 1932. (See Effect of Six-Hour Day for Railroad Employees, 190 I. C. C. 750.)

I do not know that these are all the investigations which the Commission has conducted for the Congress. It is all that I have a record of.

Not only does the Commission conduct investigations at the request of the Congress, but it also lends its assistance in connection with investigations conducted by the Congress. For instance, the Commission has furnished a very considerable amount of assistance to the subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate which is currently conducting an investigation of railway financing, pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 71. In the Commission's annual report for 1930, at pages 1 and 80, reference is made to assistance given the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives in its investigation of stock ownership of railroads, and to assistance given a special committee of the Senate in its investigation of the railroad operated by the Government in Alaska.