TABLE 1.-Number and average tractive power of steam locomotives, class I railroads, United States, years 1911 and 1915 to 1933

1 Locomotives other than steam numbering less than 400 and unclassified locomotives are excluded from this statement.

Fiscal year ending June 30.

Source: 1911-Operating Statistics, Bureau of Railway Economics, 1915-20-Statement No. 9, p. XV, Thirty-fourth Annual Report, I. C. C. 1920-Statistics of Railways, United States. 1921-32-Statement No. 8, p. 8-9 Forty-sixth Annual Report, I. C. C. 1932-Statistics of Railways, United States. 1933Yearbook of Railroad Information, 1934.

TABLE 2.-Train length (average number of cars per freight train, including caboose), class I railroads, United States, years 1920-33 and 11 months, 1934

1 Average number of cars per freight train, including caboose. Base, 1920.

Source of information previous 1932: Statistics of Railways United States, p. S-40; Statement XXI, Forty-fifth Annual Report, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1931. 1932-34 information: Reports, Interstate Commerce Commission, Freight and Passenger Service Operating Statistics, Statement No. 210

TABLE 3.-Gross tons per freight train (excluding locomotive and tender), class I railroads, United States, years 1920-33 and 11 months, 1934

Source of information previous 1932: Forty-fifth Annual Report Statistics of Railways of Class I, United States, Interstate Commerce Commission, p. S-40; 1932-34 information: Yearly Reports Interstate Commerce Commission, Freight and Passenger Service Operating Statistics, statement M-210.

TABLE 4.-Class I railroads, United States, years 1920-33 and 11 months 1934

Source of information: Yearly and monthly reports freight and passenger service, operating statistics, I. C. C. Statement M-210.

Mr. REECE. Is consideration still being given to the application for funds with which to build those refrigerator ships?

Mr. FARQUHARSON. I think that that is still under consideration, is it not?

Mr. BELL. It has been denied.

Mr. FARQUHARSON. It has been denied, but it may be revived at any time.

Mr. REECE. The funds, if granted for that purpose, I presume would come out of the appropriation for work relief.

Mr. FARQUHARSON. Yes; I understand that it is P. W. A. money and the amount was $12,000,000.

Mr. REECE. It would be rather unusual to take work-relief funds and give a few men temporary relief, and throw good citizens out of their permanent jobs.

Mr. FARQUHARSON. You are quite right, Mr. Reece. The building of the ships would have given some men temporary employment, but thereafter would have thrown many men permanently out of employment.

Mr. REECE. That would be its chief effect. They would not provide transportation facilities which are not already available.

Mr. FARQUHARSON. Answering your question, a good many of the ship lines that are now operating around to the west coast have refrigerating space in them at the present time, and if I remember the testimony offered by Captain Luckenback and a few of the shipowners, they said that they had never been able so far to get tonnage enough to fill the refrigeration space that they already had. It looks to me like just a duplication of waste.

Mr. MARTIN. How long have they been handling refrigeration on the water lines?

Mr. FARQUHARSON. I could not answer that question, Mr. Martin. Mr. MARTIN. But they are handling it?

Mr. FARQUHARSON. Oh, yes.

Mr. REECE. I assume that any agency having charge of disbursing work-relief funds would certainly give serious consideration to that aspect of it before reaching a conclusion with reference to such an application.

Mr. FARQUHARSON. Well, we hope so.

Mr. REECE. I certainly hope so.

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Reece, has it not, rather, been our experience with all of these river developments that for every mile to be constructed, and also with the barge canals, that we have granted them a perpetual subsidy to an interest that goes on indefinitely?

Mr. REECE. The figures which we have had here since this hearing began would show that that would seem to be the case.

Mr. HOLMES. It seems to me that that is about the size of it. It might be that we might be able to revive some of these abandoned roads and give them a Federal subsidy and run them and give some of these men employment. I know of a case in my district of the Worcester, Nashua, and Portland division of the Boston & Maine that I would like to see revived. It makes me sick to drive alongside and see no trains going over that division.

Mr. MARTIN. Nature furnishes the water highways and the rivers and harbors bill furnishes the terminals.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Anything further?

Mr. FARQUHARSON. That is all.

Mr. PETTENGILL. We thank you.

Mr. FARQUHARSON. Thank you.

Mr. PETTENGILL. We will hear Mr. Lovell.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. LOVELL, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. LOVELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Arthur J. Lovell. I am vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. My office is No. 10 Independence Avenue, Washington, D. C. I will not take more than 5 minutes of your time. I just want to say that Mr. Harrison spoke in behalf of my organization as well as the other 20 standard railroad labor organizations. I fully concur in what he said, also what Mr. Farquharson and Mr. See had to say. For more than a dozen years I have been appearing before committees of Congress, the Senate and the House, on legislation of this

sort, going back to, I think, the first was the Gooding bill, by former Senator Gooding, the Pittman bill, and other legislation.

I am here today in support of the Pettengill bill.

I just want to say that perhaps there has been more misinformation broadcast on this particular subject than most any other legislation pending before Congress during the past dozen years. It is very simple, if we will just take a picture of the United States. We did not have the conditions prior to the building of the Panama Canal that brought this problem before us, but with the construction and completion of the Panama Canal the coast wise shipping coming from the east coast around to the west coast, or vice versa, goes through the Canal. The result is that a ship can load a cargo in New York, come around by the Canal, unload that freight at Los Angeles or San Francisco, and ship it back in by rail or by truck to about Phoenix, Ariz., for about or approximately the same freight rate as the same cargo can come in by rail from New York to Phoenix. Now, that works both ways. For instance, a cargo of lumber can be loaded at Seattle or Portland, come through the Canal, and come to Boston, New York, Baltimore, or even into Washington-and they have come here with loads as high as the ceiling above the deckI have seen them; not many, but they have come; and that lumber can be unloaded here and transported to about Pittsburgh, or as far west as Columbus, Ohio, for about the same or approximately the same freight rate that the lumber can be loaded on the railroad and transported across the continent to Columbus. The only difference is that you get quicker transportation usually by rail.

Now, there is an inequity and an injustice to the country that is suffering from that condition; and the railroad employees, it has been stated time and again to the committee of Congress, suffer as well as the railroads. The employees and the railroads both suffer. Now, they are substantial taxpayers of this great country. Congress in its appropriations has to have taxes, and the railroads and the railroad employees of this country, I think, as one group perhaps pay more taxes than any other single group of business or industry in this country.

I just wanted to point that out.

Now, next, I want to enlarge just a minute on what Mr. Farquharson said from the standpoint of the national defense. Our railroads are not subsidized nor are the railroad employees subsidized.

These coastwise ships do not have to keep up any tracks. Their harbors are maintained by the Government-even the lighthouse service, as you gentlemen well know, is maintained by the Government. Such is not maintained for the railroads or even their employees.

The bus and truck, airways, which are competitors-and they have a right to some business; we are not opposing them-but they are subsidized by the highways we build and, the airports we have built, and so forth. There is nothing like that for the railroads.

From the standpoint of national defense there is nothing yet that can supersede the railroads. Our inland waterways freeze up or are closed by fog or by high water or acts of nature, and they cannot be used for perhaps 3 months out of the year. We have got to depend

upon the railroads. The busses and trucks cannot operate in bad weather. They cannot go through. They cannot go over the mountains and through the rough country in bad weather.

Even our airplanes are grounded when there is a fog or severe thunderstorm, but the railroads do go through, and from the standpoint of national defense of this country we have got to maintain the railroads.

Now, gentlemen, I think that after a dozen years' consideration before Congress, when so much information has been furnished, that it is high time something should be done for an industry that is absolutely essential; that is, furnishing the best kind of transportation yet possible. There is nothing that has been discovered or invented, with all due respect to the busses, trucks, pipe lines, canals, airways, and everything else, there is nothing yet in the way of transportation that will supersede the railroads. We have just got to have them. And there is no use of starving them or punishing them by some iniquitous condition such as this section 4 has been. And we are all agreed on it. That took years. When I first appeared before the committees the employees were not all agreed. The railroads were not all agreed, but today they have finally all agreed and we are a unit, and we happen to be in the business of transportation, and I think the testimony of all of these labor organizations and all of the railroads, railroad executives, should be given weighty consideration by Congress, and I hope that your committee will not only report the Pettengill bill favorably but that Congress, will act favorably upon it at this session of Congress. I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Thank you, Mr. Lovell.

Mr. LOVELL. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF W. D. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, LABOR BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. My name is W. D. Johnson, vice president and national legislative representative of the Order of Railway Conductors, Labor Building, 10 Independence Avenue, Washington, D. C.

I want to appear in support of this bill as the rpresentative of the Order of Railway Conductors. Our organization, as you know, is one of the 21 standard railway labor organizations.

However, I have a witness, Mr. A. C. Wilson, coming in, who should arrive here Thursday morning, or some time Thursday, from the State of Utah, who is an active conductor and has made quite an extensive study of this, has been very active in the interest of section 4 for some considerable time. He has accumulated some data and other information which I am confident will be of material service and of benefit to your committee in your final consideration of this bill, and with that thought in mind, I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that I be allowed to appear in support of this bill some time Thursday, Thursday afternoon or Friday, at which time I would like to introduce for testimony Mr. A. Č. Wilson, who will arrive some time tomorrow.