sixth zones. All of these changes have been consented to by the Commission. The act provides no standard or rule of action for the Commission. It apparently contemplates that when the Commission is satisfied that the change for which consent is requested will remove prevention to shipment of articles desirable, or will promote the service to the public, or secure receipt of revenue adequate to pay the cost of the service, consent will be given. The Commission has not construed the provision for investigation as requiring a public hearing, nor does it propose to do so. It will, however, when the particular case in hand suggests the propriety of it, feel entirely free to order a public hearing. One of the general duties of the Commission is to regulate the practices and charges of express companies. It has not felt called upon to consider the interests of these companies in any respect when considering applications of the Postmaster General to change parcel-post rates. The rates of the express companies have been recently revised by this Commission, and a very substantial reduction therein has been made. The Commission feels that it should be relieved from the duty of determining the extent to which the parcel post should supersede the express system which it has regulated. It is easily conceivable that a proposition for reduction of parcel-post rates might seem to the Commission to threaten the destruction of the existing express companies before adequate provision has been made by the Government for taking over all of such business. In such case the Commission would be in grave doubt as to its duty under the present law. It is recommended that the Commission be relieved of all duties in connection with the parcel post. If that is not done, the duties to be performed by the Commission, as well as the standards to be applied to it, should be more clearly stated. RECOMMENDATIONS. In the present state of the law the statute of limitations for the beginning of proceedings by shippers to recover reparation on account of unreasonable rates is fixed at two years. The statute of limitations for the initiation of criminal prosecutions by the Federal authorities for failure to collect or to pay the full amount of legally established transportation charges is three years. The statutes of limitations for the beginning of actions by carriers to recover unpaid transportation charges from shippers are provided by the several States and vary in the different States. Generally, however, they provide longer periods than is provided in the act to regulate commerce. From this instances of gross injustice result. Through inadvertence carriers sometimes fail to present bills to shippers for the legal amount of freight charges due. Such errors are discovered more than two years after the shipment has been delivered and all causes of action thereunder have accrued. The shipper thus finds himself liable to prosecution for failure to pay the legal rate, but, owing to the two-year statute of limitations, he is barred from beginning a proceeding to test the reasonableness of the charges assessed against him. We therefore recommend providing one period for beginning of all actions relating to transportation charges subject to the act. A provision should be made that all actions by carriers subject to the act for the recovery of compensation for any service subject to the act shall be begun within three years from the completion of such service, and that all complaints for the recovery of damages shall be filed with the Commission within three years from the completion of the service as to which damages are claimed, and not after. In a few instances undue preference has been given by failure to demand payment for services rendered by carriers for unreasonably long periods as to certain shippers. We recommend providing in the act that a carrier which fails to demand payment of charges for any service in the transportation of property within the period of 90 days from the time of the delivery of the shipment shall be deemed guilty of giving a rebate to the shipper. The duties of the Commission are enlarged from time to time and expansion of activities necessitates additional employees. The question of housing of the Commission will become more important and acute in the not-distant future. We therefore again recommend that the Congress either provide for the erection of a building for the Commission or authorize the Commission to enter into a lease of suitable quarters for a period of 10 years. We are confident that if authorized to enter into such contract we can obtain quarters in every way more desirable and at greatly reduced rental. This Commission has always been of the opinion that suits brought to enforce or set aside its orders should be under its supervision. Until somewhat recently the practice was to leave these cases entirely in the hands of the Commission and its attorneys. The making of the order and the defense of that order in court involve the same considerations. The Commission is familiar with the records, understands the purpose for which the particular order was made, and the effect of that order upon other rate situations. The questions presented in court, while nominally legal, are in reality of an expert character with which the ordinary lawyer has but little acquaintance. The essential thing is to present to the court the facts in the case and the point of view of the Commission. If a stranger assumes the conduct of these suits he may by failure to properly present the issues and considerations or by presenting them improperly sacrifice the order itself and secure from the court rulings which would be embarrassing in future cases. By declining to act he might even overrule the Commission entirely. At the present time the Department of Justice is invested with primary authority in the conduct of such suits, but the Commission has the right to intervene. For the reasons above suggested, among others, we have felt it necessary to maintain a staff of attorneys and to appear in all cases in which our orders are drawn in question, both before the lower courts and in the Supreme Court. Since the attorneys for the Department of Justice have also appeared, this has resulted in a duplication of work, in unnecessary expense, and sometimes in confusion, which has not contributed to the proper presentation of the case. Jurisdiction of such cases has now been transferred from a single court to numerous courts. We feel that all suits brought to enforce or set aside an order of this Commission should be brought by or against the Commission and that the Commission should be primarily charged with the duty of presenting such cases in court, subject to the right of the Department of Justice or private individuals to intervene where that is necessary to protect the public or private interests. We recommend that the Commission be authorized to make orders, after investigation, respecting the construction and maintenance of the physical properties of railroads engaged in interstate commerce and rules and regulations pertaining to the use and operation of such properties. In previous reports the Commission has indicated the desirability of legislation upon the subject of control over railway capitalization. Without attempting to add to the reasons previously advanced, we renew those recommendations. The Commission has called attention in several of its previous reports to the importance and necessity of a uniform classification for the country, and here calls attention to what has there been said and renews those recommendations. We here again call attention to our recommendations respecting the prevention of accidents, and especially that the Commission should be empowered (a) to require the use of block signal systems and (b) to require the adoption and use of steel or steel underframe cars in passenger-train service. At page 14 will be found a recommendation for legislation to make explicit and certain the authority of the Commission to examine all correspondence, files, indexes, and other papers and documents retained by carriers subject to the act. At page 63 it is suggested that the penalty of "not to exceed $500 " prescribed for violations of the hours of service act be changed to a fixed and definite sum, or that a minimum penalty of $100 be established. On the same page the Commission renews the suggestion previously made that the terms of the proviso in section 3 of the same act be so amended as to clearly and specifically define excepted causes that shall be considered to excuse excess service. At page 80 it is suggested that the Commission should be relieved of all duties under the parcel-post law, or that such duties and the standards to be applied be more clearly stated. All of which is respectfully submitted. EDGAR E. CLARK. JUDSON C. CLEMENTS. CHARLES C. MCCHORD. BALTHASAR H. MEYER. |