Since the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted hundreds of bills for its amendment have been introduced, and as to practically all of these the Commission has been called upon for an appraisal, and the Commission has been continuously working with and assisting the congressional committees. Other speakers, as well as myself, have referred to the Commission as an "independent agency." Its record is such that I think it should be properly called an "independent agency of Congress."

The Commission has had no policy except the policy determined by the Congress. It has consistently taken the view that the Congress lays down the standards by which it should act.

Notwithstanding that the Commission is, and always has been, an independent agency, and an arm of the Congress, or, as I have just said, an independent agency of Congress, efforts have been made in the past by the executive branch of the Government to interfere with that independence. This is done in different ways: It has happened in the past that when a case of great national interest was pending before the Commission, statements have been made by "White House spokesmen" indicative of the desires of the President with respect to how the case should be decided. It is also recorded that at least one President made a "personal call on the Interstate Commerce Commission", and urged his views privately upon at least one of the Commissioners. Another President issued statements tending to prejudge matters over which the Commission was called upon to exercise an independent judgment. There are a number of similar instances recorded. (See Sharfman, the Interstate Commerce Commis

sion, vol. II, pp. 452-477.)

On June 1, 1928, Mr. Commissioner Meyer, whom all of us honor and revere, in an address before the University of Wisconsin Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, said, in part:

The Commission has always been an independent body. It has nothing to do with politics and no political influence has ever determined its official action on any question. I must admit, however, that occasional attempts have been made to nibble politically at the Commission. In the past these nibbles were sometimes annoying but never harmful. It has remained for recent times to attempt to control Commission action through political channels. These attempts were made boldly and at times with fury. Every one of them has failed. I do not believe they ever will succeed but it will be a sorry day for Government if they ever should succeed (7 Railroad Data 43, June 1, 1928).

All of us remember the Humphreys case (Rathbun v. The United States) decided May 27, 1935 (295 U. S. 602), in which the President attempted the removal of a member of the Federal Trade Commission.

The legislative history of the creation of the Federal Trade Commission shows unquestionably that it was to be patterned after the Interstate Commerce Commission, and to be an independent agency because of the success which the Interstate Commerce Commission had achieved.

Senator Wheeler referred, at length, to this case in his address on the occasion of the semicentennial of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Upon the occasion of the celebration of the semicentennial of the Commission, on March 31 and April 1, to which I have earlier alluded in this statement, the accomplishments of the Commission during its first 50 years of existence were rather extensively reviewed and appraised by Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, representatives of the shippers, representatives of the railroads, and

1

others. It was clearly the outstanding feature of this occasion that every speaker who attempted an appraisal of the Commission and its work reached two conclusions: The first was that the Commission, during its first 50 years of existence, had made for itself an outstanding record of accomplishment and achievement. The second was that the fine record which the Commission had made during its first 50 years of existence was due to two things, namely, to the high character and ability of the men who had served on the Commission as members, and to the fact that the Commission had been, throughout its existence, independent of politics. Just a few short statements from some of the addresses made will demonstrate to you what I have in mind.

Mr. Henry Wolfe Bikle, general counsel, Pennsylvania Railroad, said that one of the factors largely attributing to the success of the Commission was "the courage of the Commissioners in insisting on their independence of allegiance to any influence or authority except the congressional mandate."

Mr. Elmer A. Smith, general attorney, Illinois Central System, said: The independence in the performance of its duties under the act that has characterized the Commission throughout its life has of course attributed largely to the standing of the Commission in the eyes of the practitioners. Those who submit their cases to the Commission know that they will be decided by the Commission and by no one else. They know that when they argue before the Commission they are arguing before the body that alone determines the case.

*

* *

The Commission has laid its foundation broad and strong in these 50 years. It has evolved principles that are now a part of the law itself. Granted its continued independence, we may expect it to maintain in the future the high and noble tradition that these 50 years have given it.

Mr. Luther M. Walter, general counsel, National Industrial Traffic League, said, in part:

We owe it to Congress, we owe it to the public, we owe it to ourselves and we owe it above all to the record of the Commission to muster ourselves with all the force that we can and carry to Congress the demand that the Interstate Commerce Commission be left hands off from political control.

Mr. Allan P. Matthew, president of the Association of Practitioners before the Interstate Commerce Commission, concluded his address with this statement:

May there be no disassociation of the different units of service which have been welded by time and experience into a homogeneous whole. Above all, may nothing be done which would destroy, of qualify even in the slightest measure, the essential autonomy which has been allowed to the Commission for a half century-an autonomy which, as we cannot fail to know, is indispensable to the just exercise of the Commission's salutary and far-reaching powers.

Thus, the railroads, the shippers and the practitioners all attributed the Commission's success, in no small part, to its political independence. But that was not all. Those who spoke on behalf of the Congress expressed the same views.

Chairman Lea, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, said:

It has acted as as independent agency of Congress. Its duties have been quasijudicial, intimate, and consistent in its contacts with the practical problems of transportation. The problems of the carrier, the shipper, and the consuming public have always been upon its shoulders. It has met those responsibilities with an abi ity that has given it a prestige equaled by few, if any other organization of our Government.

Hon. Sam Rayburn, majority floor leader of the House of Representatives, and for many years a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House, said, in part:

For 50 years the Interstate Commerce Commission has impartially and successfully dealt with most difficult problems. Its record is an inspiration to those who believe in the practicability of democratic government. The high standard it has maintained will guide the other Federal commissions which have been established because of the success of the Interstate Commerce Commission. This Commission has truly been independent in that it has not been subject to political pressure and at the same time it has been responsible in that it reports regularly to the Congress and its members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. I do not believe that anything is contemplated which would interfere with this independence of the Interstate Commerce Commission (at least I hope not).

Senator Wheeler, in his address on the occasion of the semicentennial of the Interstate Commerce Commission, said, in part:

I am unalterably opposed to diminishing the independent, bipartisan character of the Interstate Commerce Commission or of the similar independent agencies by placing them under Executive domination, either indirectly as has been the case, or directly as in a pending proposal.

Our objections to S. 2700 as now drawn, and before your committee, may be summarized as follows:

1. It makes possible Executive domination of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and would undermine the Commission's independence.

If Congress wants to yield, either in part or in toto, the independence of the Interstate Commerce Commission, it should be done by a direct, thoroughly considered measure, and not by an indirect or blank check method, as here proposed.

2. It centralizes, without any limitation, too much power in the Executive, with that power too indefinitely specified.

3. It furthers the creation of a government of men and not of laws. 4. The damage caused by the bill would be far greater than any benefits which would accrue from it.

5. It violates all precedents, so far as the Interstate Commerce Commission is concerned, and establishes a bad precedent for the future. We sincerely urge that the Congress take no action which will in any way, either directly or indirectly, lessen the independence of the Interstate Commerce Commission as an agency of the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Hood.

STATEMENT OF J. M. HOOD, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

Mr. HOOD. My name is J. M. Hood. For 2 years I have served as president of the American Short Line Railroad Association, Washington, D. C., to which occupation I devote all of my time.

The American Short Line Railroad Association is a voluntary, nonprofit organization with a membership of 319 common carriers by rail located throughout the United States.

For 17 years, prior to my connection with the American Short Line Railroad Association, I was head of the operating and maintenance department of a railroad of considerable importance. For 10 years prior thereto, I served several railroads in minor and supervisory capacities, including actual work with my hands in the several departments making up a complete railroad organization.

For 50 years the Interstate Commerce Commission has served as an agency, independent of Executive domination, with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial duties. Were it possible for the Congress to legislate in detail with respect to every rate, operating and equipment problem, arising in the several territories and concerning the multitude of commodities and conditions with which the Interstate Commerce Commission has to deal, the Congress would undoubtedly have retained unto itself the responsibility for such detailed legislation and refrained from creating the independent agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Likewise, were the courts qualified through the necessary technical experience and able to find the time requisite to a detailed consideration of the multitude of facts underlying the decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, there would not have developed the recognized procedure wherein the courts accept the findings of fact of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Each of the 319 common-carrier railroads doing business in interstate commerce, which it is my duty and privilege to represent, find it necessary with more or less frequency to apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission or to appear as respondents, in proceedings involving rates, practices, equipment, issuance of securities, and the granting of public-convenience certificates. For 50 years the representatives of these carriers have appealed to the Commission or defended their past practices with the conviction that facts only would constitute the basis upon which the decisions would be rendered. No short-line railroad officer has concerned himself for one moment seeking political influence or an inside track to the Commission's deliberations. "Cracker barrel" decisions were not expected and seldom, if ever, rendered.

Unhappily, in many situations, the reverse has been true with respect to proceedings before the State railroad or utility commissions. It has long been recognized that their decisions were often determined upon and then a proceeding had, designed to provide a record upon which the decisions already arrived at, could be erected. In each such State, executive domination with attendant political evils is responsible for that unhappy and unhealthy condition.

Should S. 2700, the bill now being considered by your committee, be enacted into law, the Interstate Commerce Commissioners would find themselves ham-strung in the execution of their duties and would soon become political puppets by reason of Executive interference. It is not possible to successfully conduct any activity, whether it be business, nonprofit or regulatory, when control over personnel, working conditions, supplies, and so forth, is vested elsewhere.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has succeeded in maintaining a delicate balance brought about by and protecting the conflicting interest of producers, consumers, and providers of transportation service of the various forms. A very little tinkering will destroy this balance and the usefulness of the Interstate Commerce Commission. This bill might be termed "snowball" legislation, in that tampering with the independence of the Commission as provided in the bill would be found so useful and the means of securing such certain results by those in authority, that the size of the snowball would rapidly increase and additional efforts made in subsequent sessions of the Congress, to further restrict the independence of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

However well intentioned may be the motives of those responsible for the terms of S. 2700, the effect, in my judgment, would be to destroy the great usefulness of the Interstate Commerce Commission, gradually at first but at an accelerated pace as time went on; and, on behalf of the American Short Line Railroad Association and its 319 members, interstate common carriers by rail, I express the devout wish that the bill will not prevail.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Ames.

STATEMENT OF HARRY C. AMES, NEW JERSEY INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE

Mr. AMES. If the committee please, my name is Harry C. Ames, practicing attorney, specializing before the Interstate Commerce Commission in commerce work. I am appearing here on behalf of the New Jersey Industrial Traffic League, which is similar in scope and effect to the National League. I also have been asked to speak on behalf of the Wichita, Kans., Chamber of Commerce. Both of these are organizations of shippers.

I wish, first of all, to adopt the testimony of all the preceding witnesses as to the intelligence and integrity of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I shall not touch upon that any further.

First of all, I should like to say I have spent 27 years of my life in gainful employment, and that, very oddly, has been divided into three equal parts of 9 years each. Nine years I was in the executive department of the Government, the interdepartment; 9 years I was with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and 9 years I have practiced before that Commission as a lawyer. So I think I am qualified to speak from an experience of 18 years of the functions of the Commission.

I think I am also very well qualified to draw a distinction or comparison as between the functions of an executive department and those of an independent establishment.

Now I appear in direct and vigorous opposition to this bill, insofar as it relates to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and I do not speak on behalf of any other commission.

In my approach to the bill I have tried to analyze it from a lawyerlike standpoint, and I think that the bill, in its present form, is absolutely unworkable and inadvisable. I have tried to approach this bill as though I had a case involving its direct application. I think it is unworkable, because certain of its provisions are so inconsistent as to be absolutely in conflict, each with the other.

I think it is unworkable because even the framers of the bill have no idea of the scope of its application.

I think it is unworkable because it is impossible for anyone, any member of this committee, any framer of this bill, to determine and define the twilight zone between routine administrative and executive functions, and quasi-legislative functions.

I think it is highly inadvisable because it puts into the hands of the President, or any President, the power to appoint personnel of an independent organization like the Interstate Commerce Commission. That, in my opinion, is one of the most vicious things the bill does.

Now I am going to try to approach it piece by piece, and I will be as brief as I can. I come directly to the powers of the President