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 coastwise 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.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Does anyone else wish to appear at this time? Mr. JOHNSON. I think perhaps Mr. Corbett, of the engineers, would like to make a statement along that line.

I would like to say that I want about 2 or 3 minutes, and I think that Mr. Wilson will not take up over 15 or 20 minutes of your time at the outside.

Mr. PETTENGILL. We will try to arrange to hear both.

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. CORBETT, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CORBETT. My name is John T. Corbett, national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 10 B Street SW., Washington, D. C.

I want to verify what Mr. Johnson has just said. I have a member of the engineers' organization coming here from Ogden, Mr. Pell, and the best information that I can secure is that he should arrive here possibly Thursday forenoon, but I am not sure as to that time.

Mr. PETTENGILL. I am sure that the committee will want to hear from him. We want to limit his time within reason, of course, so as to not unduly disrupt our other program for Thursday, but I am sure we will all want to have the benefit of his testimony as well as Mr. Wilson's.

Mr. CORBETT. I would like to appear just ahead of him.

Mr. PETTENGILL. All right.

Is there anyone else who wishes to go on this afternoon? If not, we will adjourn until tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet at 2 p. m. the following day, Wednesday, June 12, 1935.)

TO AMEND THE FOURTH SECTION OF THE INTERSTATE

COMMERCE ACT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1935

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met in room. 115, House Office Building, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 p. m., Hon. John A. Martin presiding. Mr. MARTIN. The committee will be in order. Mr. Haynes, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. P. HAYNES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. HAYNES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. P. Haynes. I am executive vice president of the Chicago Association of Commerce, Chicago, Ill.

I have been connected with transportation and commercial organization work since 1906. I have been in my present position for 14 years. For the past 12 years I have been chairman of the special fourth-section committee of the National Industrial Traffic League, an organization comprised wholly of shippers, industries, and manufacturing interests, and I am appearing here in the capacity of chairman of that special committee.

At the outset of the hearing, in order to conserve time, the chairman requested the shipper proponents of the bill to confer to see if they could coordinate their statements in order that as little time as possible be utilized, and that has been done, and I would like to file at this time a list of some 17 shipper organizations that met here yesterday, with the allotment of the time for each.

Mr. BELL. Did you say shipper opponents or proponents?
Mr. HAYNES. Proponents.

Before going on with my statement I would like to say that the National Industrial Traffic League at its annual meeting in 1933 and at its annual meeting in 1934 went on record in support of the principles now before you in the Pettengill bill. At its spring meeting held in Cincinnati, in April of this year, the matter was reviewed for the third time in the light of the pending bill now before you. I was directed to appear here and present the testimony that I am now to present.

I am appearing at this time in the capacity of chairman of a special committee, appointed by the National Industrial Traffic League to present the views of that organization..