all this information had to come in. Of course, it had to come from the railroads because they operate the trains and they conducted most of the studies.

Most of that information is in, although all of it is not in. There is some even yet to come in. But, as stated, we made a cut-off date of April 30, 1950. So we have had 2 months and 27 days to analyze and summarize the information and put it in evidentiary form-this vast amount of material.

POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAL

Originally it had been the purpose of the Department to go to trial in June 1950. But the railroads in November 1949 tried to obtain a Commission order for a second interim increase and it took the energy of all of us for 41⁄2 months to ward off this request for another interim increase in mail pay. We insisted that the case go to trial on the merits. That occasioned a 42-month delay which prompted the Commission to set the case down for trial on September 19, 1950.

As I have said, Mr. Chairman, the cut-off date was April 30, 1950, on all of the material that is to be in our hands, and that material cannot be worked up and put in evidentiary form to do justice to the Department's case in less than 6 months. The Commission, last March, fixed September 19, 1950, as the date for trial, with the understanding that, if it was not possible to process this material, they would consider an extension of the time. We have a request in for a 60-day extension, which would bring this case on for trial November 19, 1950.

That, Mr. Chairman, in broad outline is the situation and is the occasion for the need of this additional sum of money to carry on this work.

Mr. GARY. When do you think you are going to complete this case? Mr. WIPRUD. We are going to trial on November 19, 1950 if the extension is granted. In view of the fact that the Commission has required the parties, some 5 weeks in advance of the hearings, to exchange all exhibits on their affirmative case-not only the exhibits, but their prepared testimony, we believe that the case can actually be tried in a matter of weeks. It has been a matter of many months in past hearings, but by the exchange of exhibits between the railroads and the Post Office Department and the exchange of all testimony, which will be in written form, the task will be that of rebuttal evidence to the affirmative case on both sides.

WORK PERFORMED IN DEPARTMENT

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Wiprud, when you say, "We have been studying, we have been analyzing, we have been compiling," to whom do you refer?

Mr. WIPRUD. That refers to our mail pay unit. This is the unit that has been set up especially for the purpose of handling this case. It is composed of about 56 employees.

Mr. CANFIELD. When you say "we" do you mean employees of the Post Office Department alone?

Mr. WIPRUD. That is correct.

INFORMATION GATHERED JOINTLY

Mr. CANFIELD. And yet you say that this is a joint enterprise? Mr. WIPRUD. The gathering of the information was done jointly and it had to be. The railroads operate the trains. They handle a vast amount of mail at the terminals. They perform the work, and so they have all the information dealing with the trains that are running and what it cost to run the trains, the cost for help, and so forth. The joint study is joint in this sense, that the expense is jointly borne and the studies are jointly supervised. One copy of the study is supplied to the railroads, and another copy is supplied to the Department.

The Department takes this vast amount of material and works it, processes it, and that is our case. The railroads may have a wholly different concept of how to use this material. They present their case. We certainly do not agree with them on their demands for a $500,000,000 retroactive pay or for a $200,000,000 annual increase in mail pay. But that is their case and that is the case that we have

to combat.

Mr. CANFIELD. As I recall, the Department has been quite optimistic for some time about the probable outcome of this case. I hope it still is.

Now, Mr. Wiprud, do you have any idea what the railroads of the United States are spending to fight this case before the Interstate Commerce Commission?

Mr. WIPRUD. I think, Mr. Congressman, it would be very difficult to make even an estimate of that for this reason, that they draw upon the talent of all the railroads of the United States for cost findings, transportation economics, and for their law staff. The law staff is composed of quite a number of lawyers; I should say almost 16 lawyers, drawn from the leading railroads of the United States. Their cost section is in large part composed of men from the comptrollers' offices of the various railroads. So I think it would be rather difficult to estimate what they are actually spending in the preparation of the case.

COST OF CASE TO RAILROADS AND GOVERNMENT

Mr. CANFIELD. Would you hazard the opinion that the railroads are spending several times as much as is represented by the funds appropriated by the Congress to the Post Office Department to uphold its side of this case?

Mr. WIPRUD. I believe, Mr. Congressman, taking into consideration the type of talent they are putting into this case, it would easily be several times what the Government is spending on the case.

ROUND-TRIP PROVISIONS

Mr. CANFIELD. Do your studies embrace a consideration of the so-called empty-car-return problem?

Mr. WIPRUD. Yes, indeed. We have made quite an exhaustive study of that and it will be an important feature of our case. The Postmaster General, as you may know, has requested that Congress

pass an act to repeal the so-called round-trip provision. That provision, as you know, provides that the Post Office Department shall pay the full-car rate for the return of an empty mail car.

When those provisions were enacted, most of the cars were RPO cars, and RPO apartment cars; in other words, they were distributing cars or post offices on wheels. The situation is reversed today. Most of the cars are for the purpose of handling storage mails and storage mails are moved in any kind of car-box car, horse car, refrigerator car, baggage car, express car-any kind of car. It does not call for special equipment, in other words. So whatever justification there was for the round-trip-pay provision, it has disappeared a long time ago. So the policy of the Department is to secure its repeal.

I might state that the Interstate Commerce Commission takes the view that they have the power to eliminate the round-trip provision. We do not quite agree with them, but we are going to give them a chance to do it. We are going to put in the full case before the Commission.

Mr. CANFIELD. Very good. Do you.recall when the Postmaster General last addressed the Congress asking for the repeal of this provision?

Mr. WIPRUD. I do not recall the exact date; it was a few months ago. Mr. CANFIELD. Will you be good enough to insert that information in the record?

Mr. WIPRUD. Yes, indeed.

Mr. CANFIELD. Thank you.

(The following statement was supplied later:)

On May 17, of this year, the Postmaster General transmitted to Hon. Olin D. Johnston, chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, United States Senate, the Report of the Post Office Department on the Repeal of the RoundTrip provisions of the Railway Mail Pay Act of 1916.

ANALYSIS OF SUPPLEMENTAL ESTIMATE

Mr. GARY. We will insert in the record at this point an analysis of supplemental estimate of appropriations for the fiscal year 1951.

POSTAL OPERATIONS, 1951

WITNESSES

A. B. STROM, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL

F. C. CORNWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

FACILITIES

C. N. BRUCE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF POST OFFICE OPERATIONS

N. B. WENTZEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF FINANCE

H. E. STINE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MONEY ORDERS

Mr. GARY. The next item is a request for $7,172,000 for postal operations. In this connection we will insert in the record the tables on page 5 of the justifications, which show that H. R. 7786 carries $1,786,000,000 for postal operations for the fiscal year 1951. The estimated obligations as of June 9, 1950, are $1,793,172,000, which leaves a deficit of $7,172,000.

Postal operations, 1951

Post Office Department Appropriation Act, 1951, H. R. 7786.
Estimated obligations (as of June 9, 1950)

Estimated additional supplemental appropriation__ -

Analysis of supplemental appropriation

$1, 786, 000, 000 1, 793, 172, 000

7, 172, 000

Estimated additional supplemental appropriation. 7, 172, 000

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. GARY. Who will justify this item, Mr. Strom?

Mr. STROM. Mr. Chairman, it will be justified by Mr. Bruce, Mr. Cornwell, Mr. Wentzel, and Mr. Stine, as the various activities are covered. The $7,172,000 is for three activities; mail handling and window service at post offices; mail collection and delivery; and general services. Two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars is for mail handling and window service; $173,000 for mail collection and delivery, special delivery service and $6,080,000 for rural delivery service, and $669,000 for general services. That is a total of $7,172,000. Six million four hundred and seven thousand dollars is for the cost of Public Law 500 and $765,000 is for the new money order system. Mr. Bruce will justify the cost of Public Law 500 with reference to clerks in third-class offices, special delivery service and rural delivery service.