The investigations which the commission institutes on its own motion are ordinarily investigations of substantial and national importance, and it is that class of investigations that we felt by all means ought to be determined by the commission and not delegated to subordinates, nor merely left to the judgment of one of the commission.

We respectfully ask that those qualifying conditions be left in there.

We have arrived at an understanding with the representatives of the commisison that some such qualification would not be objectionable to the commission.

Certainly, in behalf of the shippers' interests, we would like to see those conditions remain as written in the bill.

The suggestion made by counsel who just preceded me, to putting in the words "of record," I hardly believe necessary, but there certainly would be no objection to the word "parties" which must mean parties to the proceedings which the commission is considering. Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lea.

Mr. LEA. May I ask you a question, or do you prefer not to have any questions asked of you while you are proceeding?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is very agreeable for you to ask any questions you may desire.

Mr. LEA. It occurs to me that it is a little unusual to give litigants a choice of the tribunal they should have. As a litigant, I would like the privilege, perhaps, of choosing between the courts. But from the public standpoint, why should I have that privilege? The idea is to expedite the business and to try to give everybody a hearing, a square deal, and prompt action, I presume.

Why should it be optional, to be determined by the litigant, as to whether or not this assignment should be made?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is our thought that, in cases which, for example, involve modification of the rate structure and the matters of such importance, the responsibility of the commission should be required. On the other hand, we realize that many of these cases are of minor importance to the parties; the litigants themselves may not want to undergo the expense of, or the time required, for formal proceedings.

The commission investigated that situation and instituted shortened procedure, which has been referred to, and which is done by consent of the litigants, where we waive a hearing.

Mr. LEA. Now, conceding that that is true-and I have no doubt it is why should not the decision be left to the commission to do the right thing, instead of leaving it to a litigant, an interested party, who may have an exaggerated idea of the importance of his case? That is not criticism. That is a matter of practical procedure.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Association of Practitioners has never passed on this point. The shippers, litigants in this case, felt that they should have the benefit of the decision of a division of the commission if they wanted it. Now, that is the only reason that we have for that. We do not feel that that should be left entirely to the discretion of the commission. We have no fear of the commission,

as it carries out the principles that it has declared, but there may be other commissioners come on that we do not feel that way about. We just feel like we want that protection, Mr. Lea.

Mr. LEA. Well, in this case, where the commission initiates its own investigations, why should it not be unhampered as to the tribunal that is selected?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The commission institutes its own investigations. They involve matters that it considers of such public importance that they should not wait until some person, who is being injured, feels that he is being injured and should file a complaint, but upon its own motion institutes its invesigations.

So far as I know, from some twenty-odd years of experience in the practice, the commission has done that on its own motion. They have been, in every instance that I can recall, very important matters. Now, it is true that the commission would no doubt hesitate about referring anything of that kind to a board of employees, but, on the other hand, for the shipping public, we would feel better about it if, when the commission considers anything of enough importance to institute an investigation on its own motion, they should be required, under the law, to decide it as a commission, or as a division of the commission, and not merely refer it to a board of employees; and I may say this further, that but for these restrictions in here, you would find that there would be a much greater number of appeals from the decisions of these boards. If this bill be carried out by the commission, as here contemplated, it is my personal judgment that the appeals to the division or the commission will be in a relatively smaller proportion of the cases, and I speak of that from an observation of other matters where the commission has dealt with them through divisions or through committees.

Mr. LEA. Well, now, to try to give the idea of what I have in mind: I have the impression it would be better, if the commission initiated more proceedings. The natural tendency for any body, or any board or commission, or bureau, is to leave things alone, as long as nobody complains.

Now, a bad condition may exist, which may not be one of great importance. It may be of great importance to a small section of shippers, or small section of the country, and I have always felt I do not trust my judgment on that-that it would be a good thing if the commission had the power and facilities for initiating more investigations of their own, purely from the public standpoint, doing the right thing by shippers and the consumers and the Government.

And so I felt like increasing their facilities in the commission in initiating those investigations, and here I see this exception that seems to discourage or hamper it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It does not discourage them at all.

Mr. LEA. Now, if we want them to make those investigations I would say, let them go ahead and have a free rein.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It does not discourage the making and instituting of investigations, in any manner whatsoever. It merely provides that if they consider anything of enough public importance that they are going to institute an investigation on their own motion, it should

be decided by the commission or by a division of the commission, not merely left to a board of employees.

Mr. LEA. Well, there is this to be considered

Mr. FULBRIGHT. May I make this further observation in that connection?

Mr. LEA. Yes.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The practice of the commission and the provisions of the act are such that any shipper, anywhere, can file a complaint and start an investigation without having to hire a lawyer or go to any expense particularly to do so. The commission has so built up its practice as to encourage that, and so far as the league is concerned, which is made up of shippers, they have been very much in sympathy with that. I do not think your uneasiness about the methods of investigation has any foundation in fact, because, as a matter of fact, there are so many complaints that are filed all the time about every situation, and it is so easy to file them, that the commission is kept so busy attending to them, that I do not know where they can find something to investigate that has not already been or is not already before them in some form.

Mr. LEA. Well, there are a great many people who are unconscious of their rights, or who do not have the money to enforce them, and I can conceive of many of those things, not of great importance, where the public interest might be seriously concerned, and yet the commission might not instigate proceedings. You said that the commission had instigated 20 in so many years?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I said relatively few. Oh, no; there have been many more than that. I have in mind the ex parte proceedings, which are proceedings that are instituted by the commission, there having been over 100 of them, and all or practically all of which, have been in that period; and in addition, there are proceedings that are instituted by the commission, which are given a regular docket number, such as the 17,000 docket number, investigations in response to the Hoch-Smith resolution, such as the reduction of rates in 1922, which was a formal docket, No. 13,293, and many of those. The commission has instituted many investigations, but as contrasted with the number of formal complaints that are filed before it, they are negligible in numbers. They are great in importance, however.

I would like to say this, in concluding, that this has been a matter that has agitated us for a long while. The time is short now. So far as we can tell, every interest that is familiar with the problem, is clamoring for this to be done, and we would like, if this committee can, to have it promptly disposed of, and be fortunate enough to secure a rule, in order that we might get it through, and I shall also pledge to this committee my efforts to assist in the other branch of Congress in getting them to give prompt consideration to the

matter.

Mr. HOCH. Mr. Chairman, just one question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoch.

Mr. HоCH. Some years ago there was a great deal of agitation about relieving the commission by decentralizing its work and establishing regional commissions. Has your association given up the idea that that is practicable or desirable?

29

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is a long story to answer. We worked on it for years, and we were never able to work out a satisfactory division that we thought would really save time and expense to the public. In theory, we favored it. In practice, we have been unable to devise, as yet, a plan that we thought was workable.

Mr. HOCH. I came to the same conclusion some years ago, was wondering whether you had any new thought on that. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shallenberger.

and I

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Is it your belief, or opinion, that the bill would relieve the commission of a part of the work it has to do now and expedite the public interests materially?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes, sir; it will.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. And that the commission has so much to do that they can not handle the cases that come to them now?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is just humanly impossible for them to keep current with it.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. What is the reason for the increase in the number of cases, since 1908, when these gentlemen said they were up with their work? Now, has that resulted from these other laws, requiring them to perform additional functions?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Our problems have become more complex and multiplied in many ways, and the Congress has imposed many more duties on the commission.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. By law?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes. In the transportation act of 1920 you imposed about 14 additional new duties upon the commission, each of which required a substantial amount of consideration by the commission.

Mr. BURTNESS. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me just a moment. I want to say this before I forget it, Mr. Burtness. One way to expedite this matter is for the witnesses appearing here this morning to get their revised remarks in here this afternoon.

Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the work of the commission, do you not think that the economic dislocation of the last few years has also tended to increase very much the problems before the commission, the issues that have gone before the commission?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Indeed. I can illustrate that by what is known as the sixth section, the board that passes on applications for authority to put in rates on less than the statutory notice of 30 days. Formerly, that part was largely unimportant, but with the development of truck transportation, competitive means of transportation, the commission is literally swamped with those applications.

Mr. BURTNESS. If economic conditions were more nearly normal, there would be far less work before the commission, in your judgment?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes. We hope that time will soon arrive, when we can say that it is normal.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now stand adjourned.
(Thereupon, at 11.40 p. m., the committee adjourned.)

Hon. SAM RAYBURN,

THE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK,
New York, N. Y., January 16, 1933.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN RAYBURN: We notice in the Traffic World of January 14 that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will hold a hearing on January 18 on H. R. 7432. This is merely to remind you that we wrote you on January 19, 1932, expressing our wholehearted support of this legislation which the Interstate Commerce Commission has recommended for several years past, in the hope that its work might be speeded up.

We feel that it is hardly necessary for us to enter an appearence before your committee, as the object of the legislation is so clear and the necessity for it is so obvious.