Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. LEA. We have out in our State, for instance, where the freight bill is very high, as we have to ship across the continent, seasonal productions and a few months' delay means a higher freight rate, perhaps for a whole crop. That may be a very important matter. Of course, I realize it takes time to dispose of such matters. If there is any practicable way of hastening decisions I believe it would be a good service to the country.

Mr. EASTMAN. Well, my own belief is that this bill would help toward that end.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much obliged to you, Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. BENTON, you had some resolution or letter to present to the committee. We shall be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. BENTON, GENERAL SOLICITOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BENTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do want to put in the record a resolution. I will say that I appear here as the general solicitor for the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners in which members of the State railroad and public utilities commissions are represented in membership.

The State commissions are frequently parties before the Interstate Commerce Commission and under the cooperative provisions of the interstate commerce act are frequently associated with the commission in investigations and hearings and are, of course, greatly interested in the efficient operation of the commission. The association holds annual conventions and functions through the year through standing committees.

The president of the association this year is Hon. J. Paul Kuhn, of the Illinois commission.

The chairman of the association's committee on legislation is Hon. A. R. McDonald, of the Wisconsin commission. He has been chairman, as you know, for several years.

This particular bill has not been specifically discussed and acted upon by the association, but at the convention held by the association in 1932, a resolution was offered by Chairman Shaughnessy, of the Nevada commission, which was considered by the executive committee and favorably reported upon, and unanimously adopted by the association which, in my judgment, fully covers this bill.

When this hearing was had, I communicated with Chairman McDonald and asked for instructions with respect to this hearing and he has written me a letter which I would like to leave to make a part of the record in full. With your permission, I will read the body of it. [Reads:]

Hon. JOHN E. BENTON,
General Solicitor,

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN,
Madison, Wis., January 14, 1933.

National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, together with copy of H. R. 7432 and copy of a resolution adopted at our convention held at Hot Springs, Ark., in November, 1932.

While it is true that not much discussion was had at the convention with reference to this particular matter, it is also true to my personal knowledge that practically every State commission feels that the Interstate Commerce Commission is overloaded with work and that something should be done to relieve that situation. The bill, as I understand it, proposes a plan that is followed quite generally by State commissions. For example, the securities division, a branch of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, administers what is commonly referred to as the "blue sky law." That division is authorized by the commission to render decisions in cases where the policy of the commission has been established, and the application meets the requirements of the law and the commission policy. In the event of a denial of a permit by the securities division, the applicant has the right to appeal to the commission, and the commission hears and determines, subject, of course, to appeal to the courts. It seems to me the proposed plan would follow very closely our own plan.

In view of the fact that our national convention unanimously adopted the resolution introduced by Commissioner Shaughnessy, it would seem that we are justified in supporting H. R. 7432. Therefore this is to request that you appear before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives on behalf of the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners in support of H. R. 7432.

Very truly yours,

A. R. MCDONALD, Commissioner.

A copy of my letter to Chairman McDonald was also supplied to President Kuhn and a copy of this letter also went from Chairman McDonald to the president of the association.

May I now present the resolution referred to?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BENTON. The resolution is as follows:

[Resolution Adopted at Annual Convention of National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, Hot Springs, Arkansas, November 15-18, 1932]

Whereas the effectiveness of regulation depends to a large extent upon the expedition with which the facts upon which action must be taken may be determined by the regulatory body, and any necessary orders may be made effective, and

Whereas the length of time which intervenes between the institution of a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the making effective of an order therein is not infrequently a period of several years, and Whereas such delays are in no degree due to any lack of diligence on the part of the members of said commission or on the part of its employees, but are due rather in part to the vast amount of work which has been imposed upon said commission by law, in part to lack of power on the part of said commission to make proper delegation of matters to individual commissioners and employees for investigation and initial decision, and in part to the lack of a sufficient force of trained employees to enable the commission under any system of procedure to keep its work current: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That this association urges upon Congress such amendment of the interstate commerce act as shall enable the commission to utilize to the fullest advantage its present forces, and that such additional appropriations be made for the use of said commission that it can equip itself with such forces as shall be necessary to enable it to keep its work current.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Benton.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE A. MILLER, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, you wanted to be heard on this?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name and whom you represent to the reporter.

Mr. MILLER. My name is Clarence A. Miller. I am assistant general counsel of the American Short Line Railroad Assciation, and appear before your committee on behalf of that association.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that you ask for 10 minutes.
Mr. MILLER. That will be sufficient.

Our association indorses the bill which is now before your committee, namely, H. R. 7432.

This indorsement is predicated upon the fact that the bill, if enacted, will enable the members of the Interstate Commerce Commission to give more careful attention to matters of major importance, while at the same time it does not deprive any party of any of his rights in proceedings before the commission. It will also have the effect of accelerating the work of the commission.

I would point out, first of all, that this bill does not give the commission power to delegate its authority in cases where investigations are instituted upon its own motion, nor in contested proceedings, without the consent of the parties thereto.

I would also point out that the bill specifically provides that any party affected by any order, decision, or report, of any individual, commissioner, or board, has the right to file a petition for reconsideration or for rehearing by the commission or by a division of the commission, and that such petition must be passed upon by the commission, or by one of its divisions.

From the time the commission was established in 1887 until the act of August 9, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 270) it was necessary, in the opinion of the commission at least, for every member to give his personal attention to each case.

For many years, this worked very well. In its annual report to Congress for the year 1908, the commission stated:

It is a matter of satisfaction to be able to state that the commission is practically abreast of its work; that all complaints, whether formal or informal, are disposed of with such delay only as is inherent in the nature of the particular case, and that their determination is not seriously delayed by inability of the commission to discharge with promptness the duties devolving upon it. (Page 8.)

The Hepburn amendment of June 26, 1906 (34 Stat. L. 584), and the Mann-Elkins Act of June 18, 1910 (36 Stat. L. 539), greatly increased the work of the commission.

By the act of August 9, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 270), the membership of the commission was increased to nine, and it was authorized to divide itself into divisions, of three or more members each, and the decision of a division became the decision of the commission, subject, of course, to the right of the commission to review a decision of any division. This tended to expedite the work of the commission.

However, the transportation act of 1920 (41 Stat. L. 456) tremendously increased the work of the commission.

A study of the annual reports of the commission shows that for the 10-year period, 1911 to 1920, inclusive, the commission disposed of an average of 775 formal docket cases each year. For the 12-year period, 1921 to 1932, inclusive, the commission disposed of an average of 1,397 formal docket cases each year. In other words, the formal cases of the commission have increased 80 per cent since the enactment of the transportation act of 1920. That act, however, added only two members to the commission.

These figures show that it is manifestly impossible for the commission to give adequate consideration to every case, and at the same time dispose of a sufficient number of cases to keep anywhere near current with its work. The cases, therefore, in many instances do not get the consideration they merit.

What has been said is, of course, no disparagement of the commission.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the Western Grain case (284 U. S. 248) has been much publicized, and the idea has become prevalent in the minds of the public that the commission is very much in arrears in its work, and that it takes too long a time for it to decide cases.

It is believed that the record of the commission for expeditious decision of cases will compare very favorably with the record of the

courts.

I would call your attention to the fact that in the Western Grain case the decision of the commission was handed down in just one year from the time the case was submitted to it upon oral argument. Of course, the commission can not be charged with the delays incident to the presentation of the cases to it, because those delays are frequently due to counsel, or to matters wholly beyond the control of the commission.

To determine approximately the length of time taken by the commission to decide cases. I have checked the last 54 contested cases in which I have been one of the attorneys before the commission. Here is the result: 17 were decided in one month or less. Eleven were decided in between one and two months. Nine were decided in between two and three months. Four were decided in between three and four months. Six were decided in between five and six months. In four cases more than six months, but less than one year, was required for decision, and in only one case did the commission hold the case more than one year after submission before deciding it. These include finance cases, valuation cases, investigations and suspension cases, rate cases, and excess income cases. They are, therefore, fairly representative of the general run of cases before the commission. This record, I believe, will compare favorably with the record of any court. The commission has, from time to time, taken such action as it believed it was authorized to take in order to expedite the handling of cases. In 1923 the commission initiated what is generally known as the "shortened procedure " whereby the usual hearings before a commissioner or examiner are dispensed with, and the cases submitted on sworn statements of fact. Of course, this procedure must be agreed to by counsel.

The benefits of the bill now before your committee will not alone tend to speed up the handling of the commission's work generally, but, most of all, if the commission is permitted to delegate some of its lesser important work, the members will be able to give more time and more careful attention to the matters of major importance, and that is the thing that is most desirable. We believe this will assist in a better interpretation and application of the law by the commission. In other words, we think that if the commission has more time we will get better decisions.

There is precedent for the procedure prescribed in this bill. In 1922 and subsequent years boards of referees were created from the

personnel of the commission to hear and determine cases brought under the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the Federal control act. That seemed to work very well. There is no reason why boards. composed of qualified employees of the commission may not dispose of a vast amount of the lesser important work of the commission without having to burden the members of the commission with such work.

As to the language of the bill, I have only one suggestion to make. On page 2, line 7, after the word "parties" I believe there should be inserted the words "of record, so that statement will read parties of record," rather than of "parties." This suggestion may seem to be an excess of precaution, but I submit it for your consideration.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Miller. We have 25 minutes, and we must close this hearing this morning, gentlemen. Is there anyone here who desires to be heard briefly?

STATEMENT OF R. C. FULBRIGHT, HOUSTON, TEX., APPEARING IN BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PRACTITIONERS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: My name is R. C. Fulbright. I reside at Houston, Tex. I appear here in behalf of the Association of Practitioners Before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and in behalf of the National Industrial Traffic League.

Both of those organizations give their full support to this bill as it is written, and presented to you here. I have been chairman of the legislative committee of the league for some 11 or 12 years, and at the present time am president of the Association of Practitioners, which is an organization of some 2,000 licensed practitioners, before the Interstate Commerce Commission, made up in part of railroad lawyers, in part of lawyers who represent shippers, and in part of traffic officials and traffic representatives, who have qualified and have been admitted to practice.

I shall not go into any detailed consideration of the measure for the reason that it has been well covered by Commissioner Eastman. I wish merely to direct your attention to one or two things in connection with his presentation.

A question was asked by the Member from California [Mr. Lea], as to the limitation placed in the proviso of the bill. The National Industrial Traffic League took the first action in favoring something of this kind in 1927, five years ago last November, for the reason that we realized that something had to be done to facilitate the work of the commission.

At the time we did it, we did so with full knowledge of the principles that the commission had in mind in suggesting something of that kind, but some of our members felt that the law should be rather specific in that, in a case where the hearing is required under the statute, and where the parties do not waive the opportunity of a hearing of the testimony in contested cases, we wanted to be assured that we would have the benefit of the judgment of the commission or a division thereof, and not have that referred to a board or employees.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »