*

1 r

W l WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY ^ 5

r()VFR GOVERN M E!\ < J O V I N G IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Storage KSU LIBRARIES

O

H E A R IN G

BEFORE A

SUBCOM MITTEE OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON

IN TER STA TE AND FOR EIG N COMMERCE

HOUSE OF RE PRESEN TA TIV ES

EIGH TY -SE VE NT H CONG RESS 

FIRS T SESSION 

ON

H .R .2 4 2 9

A BILL TO PR OH IBIT DAMAGE TO, OR DESTRUCTION OF,

ANY SHIPMENT OF FR EIG HT OR EXPRESS MOVING IN 

INTE RSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND FOR OTHER 

■ -» . PUR POS ES ,

MAY 15, 1961 i : ,Z

■

Printed for the use of the Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce

71943

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1901
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOR EIGN COMMERCE

OREN H ARR IS , Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN ’ B E L L W IL LI AM S, Mississippi

PE T E R F. M A CK , Jr., Illinois

K E N N E TH A. ROBERTS , Alab ama

M ORG AN M. M OU LD ER, Missouri

H A R L E Y O. ST AGGERS, West Virginia

W A L TE R RO GE RS , Texas

SA M U E L N. FR IE D E L, Maryland

JO HN J. F L Y N T , Jr., Georgia

T O R B E R T II. M ACD O N ALD , Massachusetts

G EO R G E M. RH OD ES , Pen nsylvania

JO HN JA RM AN , Oklahoma

LE O W. O’ B R IE N , New Y ork

JO HN E. MO SS, California

JO HN D. D IN G E LL, Michigan

JOE M. KIL G O R E, Texas

PAU L G. RO GE RS , Flori da

R O B E R T W. H EM PH IL L, South Carolina

D A N R O ST EN KO W SK I, Illinois

JA M E S C. H E A L E Y , New Y ork

JO HN B. B E N N E T T , Michig an 

W IL LIA M L. SPR IN G ER , Illinois 

P A U L F. SCH E N CK , Ohio 

J. AR T H U R YO U N G E R , California 

H AR O LD R. CO LLIE R , Illinois 

M IL TO N W. G LE N N , New Jersey 

SA M U E L L. D E V IN E , Ohio 

A N CH E R N ELSEN , Minnesota 

H ASTIN G S K E IT H , Massachusetts 

W IL LA R D S. CU R TIN , Pennsylvania 

A B N E R W. SI BAL , Connecticut 

VE R N O N W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin 

P E T E R H. D O M IN IC K , Colorado

W. E. Williamson, Clerk

K enn eth J. Paint er, As sis tant Cle rk

Professional Staf f

A nd re w Stev enson Sam G. Seal

K urt B orchardt Martin W. C unningh am

Subcommittee on T ransportation and Aeronautic s

JO HN B E L L W IL LIA M S, Mississippi, Chairman

H A R L E Y O. 8T AGG ERS, W est Virginia W IL LIA M L. SPR IN G E R , Illinois

SAM U EL N. FR IE D EL, Maryland H ARO LD R. CO LLIE R , Illinois

T O R B E R T H. M ACD O N ALD , Massachusetts SAM U EL L. D E V IN E , Ohio 

JO HN JA RM AN , Oklahoma

II

I
C O N T E N T S

Pare

Text of H.R . 2429____ ________________ ____ ______ ______________ 1

Rep ort of—

Bureau of the Bud get_________________________________________

Commerce Department_______________________________________

Interst ate Commerce Commission______________________________

Justice Depar tment__________________________________________

Sta tem ent of—

Boren, Lyle, representing Association of Western Ra ilroads------------

Grinnell, Ern est D., Jr., Association of American Railro ads ------------

Additional information sub mitted for the record by—

Van Zandt, Hon. James E., letter from------------ --------------------------- 13

in

Min t>0 rf- W
3 T Z ' ! . Y 0

!.

S

c*p - f

C i

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . _ _ _ _ _ _ ■"

M .

......................... ... - ------------------------- ------------- - - - - . ' ■ . Z ’ •» •• <f

----- ------------* ------------------------. . .. . . . . ... ( . t o ;

;

- ------- -------------- . . . . . .............................................................. : . • n o-

-------------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------- ' ' ■ ' '

- - - - - - ------- .. . . • . '• » j- .. p ' l . ... . ft. • V •

---------------- -- •!' ( ;

• 7 - J . ..A

.................... ■••• ------------------- -------------------- i l ■' - I "

XII
WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY MOVING IN 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

MONDAY, MAY 15, 1961

H ouse of Representatives,

Subcommittee on T ransportation and Aeronautics

of th e Committee on I nterstate and F oreign Commerce,

Washing ton, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1334, 

New House Office Building, Hon. Joh n Bell Williams (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Will iam s. The committee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House 

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, is meeting this 

morning to hold a hearing on H.R. 2429, a bill to p rohibit damage to, 

or destruction of, any shipment of freight or express moving in 

interstate or foreign commerce.

The bill would apply to shipments by all modes of transportation 

by land, air, and water.

A copy of the bill, H.R. 2429, together w ith agency reports thereon, 

will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The bill, H.R. 2429, and reports thereon, follow:)

i[H.R. 2429, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BI LL To pr oh ib it dam age to, or de struction of, any shipm ent of freigh t or exp ress 

moving in in te rs ta te or foreign commerce, an d fo r othe r purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, Tha t (a) it shall be unlawful for any person willfully—

(1) to destroy, disable, or inju re any goods or chattels moving as or 

which are a part of or which constitute a shipment of freight or express 

in inte rstate or foreign commerce; or

(2) to set fire to or place any explosive, corrosive, or any other injurious 

or damaging substance o,n or so near as to damage any goods or chattels 

moving as or which are a part of or which constitute a shipment of freight 

or express in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(3) to attempt to do any of the acts referred to in paragraphs (1) or (2) 

of this subsection.

(b) Whoever violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall 

be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; 

except that if the value of such shipment does not exceed $100 he shall be fined 

not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(c) To establish the interstate or foreign commerce character of any shipment of freight or express in any prosecution under this section, the waybill 

or other shipping document of such shipment shall be prima facie evidence of 

the place from which and to which such shipment was made.

Sec. 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to break the seal or lock of, 

or enter, any railroad car, vessel, aircraft, motortruck, wagon, or other vehicle 

containing a shipment of freig ht or express in interstate or foreign commerce, 

with intent to destroy, disable, or injure all or any part of such shipment.

1
2 WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

(b ) Whoever violates any provisions of subsection (a ) of this section shall be 

fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Sec. 3. A judgment of conviction or acqu ittal on the merits under the laws of 

any State or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, shall be a bar to any prosecution under this Act 

for the same act or acts.

I nterstate Commerce Commission,

Office of the Chairman, 

Washington, D.C., April 4,1 961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inters tate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Harris: Your lette r of Febru ary 9, 1961, addressed to the 

Chairman of the Commission and requesting a report and comments on a bill, 

H.R. 2429, introduced by you, to prohibit damage to, or destruction of, any shipment of freigh t or express moving in inte rsta te or foreign commerce, and for 

other purposes, has been referre d to our Committee on Legislation. After consideration by tha t committee, I am authorized to submit the following comments 

in its beh alf:

Section 1 of II.R. 2429 would make it unlawful for any person to willfully 

destroy, disable, or injure goods or chattels w’hich are a par t of interstate or 

foreign commerce; to willfully set fire to or place any explosive, corrosive, or 

other injurious or damaging substance on or so near as to damage such goods 

or chattels; or to attempt to do any of the foregoing acts. Section 2 (a ) of the 

bill would prohibit the breaking of the seal or lock of, or entering, a railroad car, 

vessel, aircraft, motortruck, wagon, or other vehicle containing a shipment of 

freight or express in inte rsta te or foreign commerce W’ith the inten t to destroy, 

disable, or injure all or any par t of such shipment.

To establish the interstate or foreign commerce chara cter of any shipment 

coming within the provisions of section 1 of the bill, subsection (c ) of tha t 

section provides tha t the waybill or other shipping document shall be prima 

facie evidence of the origin and destinati on thereof. This provision, which now 

appears in section 659 of title 18 of the U.S. Code, entitled “Crimes and Criminal 

Procedure,” would be most helpful in establishing the fact of whether or not 

a parti cula r shipment was inte rsta te in nature. It is not clear, however, as 

to why the application of this provision is restric ted to prosecutions under 

section 1 of the bill, since its application to prosecutions under section 2 would 

seem to be equally desirable.

Section 3 of the bill would bar prosecutions under the proposed measure where 

there has been a conviction or acqui ttal on the merits under State law for the 

same act. Provisions simila r to this are contained in sections 659, 660, 1992, 

and 2117 of title 18 of the United States Code.

Insof ar as we have been able to determine there are no Federa l statu tes prohibiting the acts specified in the bill. Its enactment would therefore have the 

effect of supplementing existing statutes agains t embezzling or stealing interstate shipm ents; derailing or wrecking tr ai ns ; stealing, embezzling, or misappropriating funds of common ca rri er s; obstructing or interferin g with exports to foreign cou ntries; and breaking and entering railro ad cars, trucks, vessels, aircraft, and other vehicles with inten t to commit larceny.

Although the Inters tate Commerce Commission would have no direct responsibilities in connection with the admin istration and enforcement of this proposed measure, the enactment thereof would act as a dete rrent to the commission of the acts to be prohibited and for tha t reason would be desirable.

Since the proposal, if enacted, would probably be codified as a part of title 

18 of the United States Code, which has been enacted into positive law, it is 

suggested tha t consideration be given to changing the bill to provide tha t it 

shall be an amendment to that title.

Respectfully submitted.

Everett Hutchinson, 

Chairman, Committee on Legislation.

Howard G. Freas. 

Kenneth H. Tuggle.
WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY 3

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget, 

Washington, D.C., May 16, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House of Representative, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

My Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your lette r of February 9, 1961,

requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 2429, a bill to prohibit damage to, or destruction of any shipment of freight or express moving in 

inte rstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

The proposed legislation makes i t unlawful to (1) destroy, injure, set fire to, 

or otherwise damage goods moving in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) 

break into or enter any railroad car, vessel, aircraft, truck, or other vehicle 

for such purpose. Violations could be penalized by fines of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

There would be no objection to enactment of the bill from the standpoint of 

the administration’s program. However, your attention is invited to the suggestions contained in the reports of the Department of Justice and the Int erstate Commerce Commission for amending the measure and to the suggestion 

in the attached views of the Civil Aeronautics Board tha t it be made clear tha t 

the measure does not apply to law enforcement officers performing their duties. 

Sincerely yours,

Phillip S. Hughes,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

Civil Aeronautics Board, 

Washington, D.C., March 14, 1961.

Mr. Phillip S. Hughes,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference,

Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Hughes : This is in reply to your legislative referral memorandum 

of February 15, 1961, asking the Board’s views on H.R. 2429, a bill to prohibit 

damage to, or destruction of, any shipment of freig ht or express moving in interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

In brief, the bill makes it unlawful fo r any person willfully to destroy, injure, 

set fire to, or otherwise damage a shipment of freight or express in interstate or 

foreign commerce. The bill also makes it unlawful for any person to break the 

seal of or lock of, or enter, any railroad, airc raft, or other vehicle containing a 

shipment of freight or express in inte rstate or foreign commerce with intent to 

destroy or injure any p art of the shipment. Penalties of fine and imprisonment 

are provided for violations.

The Board believes it would be helpful to the aircargo industry to have penalties available for the protection of goods in tran sit, and endorses the proposed 

legislation.

It should be pointed out tha t special agents of the Board’s Bureau of Enforcement have occasion from time to time to open shipments for the inspection of 

commodities, and to break the seal on airf reig ht containers in connection with 

investigative functions. However, these actions are done without any intent to 

destroy or injure any part of the shipment, and therefore, it appears that the 

provisions of the bill, if enacted, would not interfere with the Board’s investigative and enforcement functions.

If the legislation is favorably considered it is suggested that it be made clear 

in the committee report, or otherwise, th at the legislation is not intended to apply 

to Federal Government representatives or other law enforcement officers where 

the opening of shipments and containers, or entry, is necessary in furtherance of 

their enforcement duties.

Sincerely yours,

Alan S. Boyd, Chairman.
4 WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

The Secretary of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C., May 19, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request of February 9, 1961 

for the comments of this Department on H.R. 2429, a bill to prohibit damage to, 

or destruction of, any shipment of freight or express moving in interstate or 

foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

Section 1 of the bill makes it a crime for any person wilfully to, or attem pt 

to (a) destroy, disable, or injure any goods, c hattels; (b) set fire to, or place 

any explosive, corrosive, or any other injurious or damaging substance on or 

so near as to damage any goods or chattels shipped by freight or express in 

interstate or foreign commerce. If the value of the shipment does not exceed 

$100 the fine is not more than $1,000, or imprisonment not more than 1 year, 

or both. Otherwise, the fine is not more than $5,000 or imprisonment not more 

than 10 years, or both. Shipping papers may be used to establish the interstate 

or foreign commerce of the shipment. Section 2 makes it a crime to break the 

seal or lock of, or enter any vehicle containing such a shipment with intent to 

destroy, disable, or injure all or any par t of such shipment. The fine is not 

more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. Section 

3 bars prosecution under the act if there has been a judgment of conviction or 

acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State or possession of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

H.R. 2962 is a bill similar in purpose to the subject proposal.

Evidently, these bills are aimed to correct a rash of incidents of willful damage to goods in interstate commerce. Apparently it is the opinion of the authors 

of the bills, that the usual available remedies under State law, both civil and 

criminal, are inadequate to correct this situation.

In general, we are not inclined to favor the projection of Federal criminal 

jurisdiction into areas normally covered by State and local law. So f ar as we 

are informed, most States have so-called malicious mischief statutes or similar 

enactments which would seem to be applicable. Action under these State 

statu tes would of course be preserved by H.R. 2429.

H.R. 2429 contains language similar to tha t in 18 U.S.C. 659 (interstate or 

foreign baggage, express or freight: State prosecutions) and 18 U.S.C. 2117 

(railroad car entered or seal broken), but H.R. 2429 makes certain actions 

crimes not embraced within those statutes.

In view of the fact that enactment of H.R. 2429 would provide a further curb 

to tampering with shipments in interstate and foreign commerce, this Department would interpose no objection to enactment of H.R. 2429.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the 

administration’s program, there would be no objection to the submission of this 

report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Endeman,

Under Secretary of Commerce.

U.S. Department of J ustice,

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, D.C., May 12, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the 

Department of Justic e concerning the bill (H.R. 2429) to prohibit damage to, 

or destruction of, any shipment of freight or express moving in interstate or 

foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

Section 1 of the bill would make it an offense, willfully (1) to destroy, disable, 

or injure any goods or chattels moving as, constituting or being a par t of “a 

shipment of freight or express in interstate or foreign commerce” ; or (2) ‘‘to set 

fire to or place any explosive, corrosive, or any other injurious or damaging substance on or so near as to damage any goods or chattels” moving as constituting 

or being a part of a shipment of freight or express in interstate or foreign commerce; or (3) to attempt to do any of these acts. Thus, it would complement
WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY 5

paragraph 1 of 18 U.S.C. 659, which makes it an offense to embezzle, steal, or 

unlawfully conceal from any movable or terminal facility of interstate or foreign 

land, water, or air transportation, any goods or chattels moving as, constituting, 

or being a part of interstate or foreign shipment of freight or express. In addition, its provisions covering the setting of tires or placing destructive substances 

near interstate or foreign freight would supplement the provisions of 18 U.S.C.

2275 and 2277 to the extent that these statutes cover such acts in connection 

with vessels.

As in section 659, section 1 of the bill would also provide tha t in establishing, 

in any criminal prosecution under its provisions, the interstate or foreign commerce character of any shipment of freight or express, “the waybill or other 

shipping document of such shipment shall be prima facie evidence of the place 

from which and to which such shipment was made” ; and tha t the maximum 

punishment shall be a fine of $5,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment, or both, if the 

value of the shipment amounts to $100 or more, otherwise, the punishment shall 

not exceed a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.

Section 2 of the bill would make it an offense punishable by a maximum fine 

of $5,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment, or both, to break the seal or lock of, or to 

enter, any movable facility of land, water, or air transportation containing inte rstate or foreign shipments of freight or express, “with intent to destroy, disable, 

or injure all or any part of such shipment.” This provision would complement 

the provision of 18 U.S.C. 2117 which makes it a crime punishable by a maximum 

fine of $5,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment, or both, to break the seal or lock of, 

or to enter, any movable facility of land, water, or air transportation containing 

inte rstate or foreign shipments of freight or express, with intent “to commit 

larceny therein.” In addition, it would supplement the provision of 18 U.S.C.

2276 insofar as the latter covers the breaking and entering of vessels with intent 

to commit any felony.

Section 3 of the bill would bar prosecution under sections 1 and 2 where a 

judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits had been obtained for the same 

act or acts under the laws of any State, possession of the United States, the 

District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Although this Department has no information as to the need for this legislation, no objection is interposed to its enactment.

However, the committee may wish to consider the desirability of revising the 

bill to attain more uniformity between its provisions and those of sections 659 

and 2117 of title 18. If the burden of proof language of section 1(c) is uniformly 

made applicable to sections 1 and 2 of the bill as well as to sections 659 and 2117 

of title 18 such uniformity would tend to avoid possible inconsistent constructions. The same recommendation is applicable to section 3 of the bill. The committee may also wish to consider the desirability of approaching the subject 

matter of the legislation through either amendment of the existing related 

sections or in any event by incorporation of the subject matter in title 18.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised tha t there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. 

Sincerely yours,

Byron R. White, 

Deputy Attorn ey General.

Mr. Williams. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Lyle 

Boren, representing the Association of Western Railroads.

STATEMENT OF LYLE BOREN, SEMINOLE. 0KLA., REPR ESEN TING 

ASSOCIATION OF WEST ERN RAILROADS

Mr. Boren. I am Lyle Boren, the Washington representative of 

the Association of Western Railroads, with offices in the Union Sta ­

tion Building in Chicago.

I appear here representing the viewpoint of the association which, 

in tu rn, represents the vast majority of the railroads in the Western 

States.

We are unanimous in our desire to see this amendment made to the 

present law.

71 94 3— 61------ 2
6 WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

The general purpose in supporting this position comes out of current problems that we have in the moving of goods in interstate commerce. Because no one could anticipate all problems, in the historical 

period of the development of these laws this particu lar problem was 

overlooked or not recognized as a part of the railroad ’s problems, as 

well as other forms of transportation when the original acts were 

enacted into law.

It is not my purpose to make any lengthy statement or discuss the 

bill.

We have with us a man representing the entire industry who will do 

that.

I simply wanted to make an introductory statement as to the basis 

for our request for this legislation and to answer any general question 

about the subject if the committee has any in mind.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Boren, this bill, in accordance with your own 

statement, to some extent duplicates existing law in tha t the parts of 

this bill which apply to water and truck shipments, I lielieve, are 

already part of title 18, United States Code; is that correct?

Air. Boren. I believe that is correct. In any event this bill would 

apply to all forms of transportation.

Mr. Williams. Your purpose is to extend existing law to cover 

railroads?

Mr. Boren. That is correct.

Mr. Williams. Yet vour bill is not offered as an amendment to 

title 18 of the code.

Would you like to clarify tha t point for us, Mr. Boren?

Mr. Boren. The reason tha t we requested that the bill come to this 

committee is because this committee is the one which is familiar with 

surface transportation and its problems.

The Judiciary Committee, while we had no objection to carrying the 

subject to them, we felt would look at the problem from the aspects 

of crime and punishment rath er than from the aspects of being a problem in surface transportation.

Although the proposal which our own attorneys from the railroads 

originally suggested would have been a direct amendment to title 18, 

we felt that this committee would have a better background of understanding of why this legislation was necessary.

In our general discussions with the Parliame ntarian of the House 

and with your own legislative drafting service the bill was drawn in 

its present form, primarily with the feeling that this committee having the background and understanding made it the proper forum for 

consideration of this problem.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to bear in mind that title 18 

in its present form, the majority of the provisions in that title did 

not come out of the Jud iciary Committee in the first place: they 

came out of this committee.

Then in the general codification of laws that occurs at intervals 

throughout our history those sections were taken out of general legislation like the Civil Aeronautics Act and the act tha t established 

trucking as a title to the Interstate Commerce Act and made a part of 

the Criminal Code.

These provisions that dealt with criminal penalties were taken out 

and simply codified into title 18.
WIL LFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY 7

If the committee sees fit to pass this bill and the Senate follows the 

same processes, as a problem of interstate commerce, it eventually undoubtedly would be codified into the present title 18 anyway.

Air. Williams. Then I take it you do not feel there is any conflict 

or any difficulty here tha t would come about as a result of the enactment of this bill and what already exists in law?

In other words, there would be no conflict between this legislation, 

if enacted, and existing law.

Mr. Boren. No conflict whatever.

Mr. Williams. I s it intended tha t this bill should replace existing 

law or should supplement it.

Mr. Boren. Supplement existing law.

I want to emphasize again tha t the existing law referred to in 

title 18 in the main, if not all, originated in this committee and tha t 

this is not unusual at all to bring a provision of this kind to this committee because of the fundamental n ature or character of the problem.

Mr. Williams. Air. Springer ?

Air. Springer. No questions at this time, Air. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Jarm an?

Air. J arman. Air. Chairman, I have no questions, but I would like 

to join with th e subcommittee in welcoming Air. Boren, who is testifying before us.

He is an outstanding Oklahoman and American and a personal 

friend of many years and for many years, as we all know, a distinguished Member of the Congress.

Mr. Williams. You migh t add a member of this committee.

Air. Boren. Thank you, Mr. Jarma n, and thank you, Air. Chairman.

Air. Williams. Air. Grinnell, we will now hear from you.

Do you have a prepared statement ?

STATEMENT OF ERNEST D. GRINNELL, JR., ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICAN RAILROADS

Mr. Grinnell. Yes, Air. Chairman. Aly prepared statement is 

about as brief as I will make it so I will follow the prepared statement.

Aly name is Ernest D. Grinnell, Jr. I am general solicitor of the 

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway, with offices at 906 Olive Street, 

St. Louis, Alo.

I appear today on behalf of the Association of American Railroads, 

whose members operate 96.65 percent of all the railroad mileage in the 

United States, and whose gross revenues constitute 98.92 percent of the 

revenues of the railroad industry.

The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., which is popularly 

called the Frisco, is a member of that association.

Aly purpose in appearing before you today is to express the wholehearted support of the railroad industry for H.R. 2429.

The bill would make it unlawful to damage or destroy any ship ­

ment of freig ht or express moving in interstate or foreign commerce, 

and would impose specific penalties upon such acts.

Since I am more familiar with the problem of vandalism and destruction of property moving in interstate commerce on the Frisco, 

I am certain the committee will understand my repeated reference 

to th at company.
8 WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

While the problem is not confined to a single type of traffic, it is 

perhaps more strikingly illustrated by the situation prevailing in the 

transportation by rail of new automobiles.

It is a matter of common knowledge tha t in the 25 years before 

1958, the railroads had lost virtually all of their automobile traffic.

By 1958, the railroads were handling only about 9.9 percent of new 

automobiles which were transported from the factories.

My company had been experimenting before 1959 with the handling 

of automobiles on trailer on flatcar service. Our initial experiments 

had proved tha t automobiles could be handled in this service by 

placing two standard highway trailers loaded with automobiles upon 

a flatcar designed for handling trailers.

The first picture attached to this statement shows one of our experimental automobile loads.

If the committee will turn to the rear of the statement you will 

see from this picture there are standard trailers such as move down 

the highway where the automobiles are out in the open. They are 

merely attached to the flatcar by hitches which resemble the hitches on 

the back of a highway truck.

The first rates covering this type of service became effective in May 

of 1959. These rates, which were made as joint thro ugh single factor 

rates, with established motor common carriers of automobiles, proved 

attractive to the automobile shippers, and during 1959 the Frisco and 

many other railroads began to handle a substantial amount of automobiles.

Our engineers had been convinced for some time that a rail car 

could be designed which would handle 12 automobiles.

During early 1959 we began experimenting with such a car and by 

June 1960 our experiments had reached the stage where we were willing to order 100 of these cars.

The second picture attached to this statement shows one of these 

cars loaded with 12 standard automobiles.

This is the type of car which is becoming a rath er familiar sight 

now. It is a three-deck car which will hold 12 standard size automobiles on three decks, fou r to a deck.

The thir d picture shows one of these cars loaded with 15 automobiles.

In the case of the compact cars tha t are generally moving pretty 

well on the market now, you can get 5 of these compact cars on the 

deck of the average trilevel car so tha t you altogether can handle 15.

This system of handling automobiles by rail has proved highly 

satisfactory and is now in use by many railroads throughout the 

country.

You will see from these pictures that in this system of handling 

automobiles the automobiles are out in the open, they are not enclosed in a boxcar as automobiles had traditionally been handled.

After we began using these new methods of handling automobiles 

two incidents occurred which led us to a detailed investigation of the 

Federal statutes dealing with damage to interstate shipments.

On April 7, 1960, a number of automobiles were being carried on 

one of our trains in trailers loaded on flatcars as in the first picture I 

have shown you. When these automobiles arrived at Tulsa it was 

discovered tha,t they had been sprayed with some kind of acid. Subsequent investigation indicated that it was sulfuric acid of a type used
WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY 9

in batteries and t hat it had been poured upon the train in which these 

automobiles had been moving from an overhead bridge near Dixon, 

Mo., which is about 135 miles west of St. Louis. In all, 18 automobiles were damaged in th is first incident.

Again on May 13, 1960, we discovered acid damage to a number 

of automobiles which had moved in a train at tha t time. The second 

incident resulted in damage to many more vehicles. In all, approximately 200 automobiles were damaged in the second incident.

Needless to say, the damage to so much freight w’as a matter of considerable concern to our special service department.

They immediately undertook extensive investigation. There was 

some thought initially tha t the Federal Bureau of Investigation could 

be brought into this case, but as I will subsequently develop, this was 

not possible.

During their investigation, our special service department referred 

the matter to the law department for an opinion as to the criminal 

statutes which might be applicable to the act of throwing or spraying 

of acid upon an interstate train , which resulted in the damage which 

I have described.

Our research indicated tha t there was no Federal statute which 

made the damaging of an interstate shipment a crime. Section 659 of 

title 18, United States Code, covers embezzlement and/or theft of goods 

which constitute pa rt of an interstate shipment. This statute, however, is limited to embezzlement and theft and does not include the act 

of intentionally damaging the shipment.

Section 1992 of title 18 of the United States Code covers the willful 

derailment, disabling, or wrecking of any train, engine, or car operated in interstate commerce, and also covers the damaging of railroad 

facilities, but, again, there is no specific description of the act of damaging the shipments which are carried in the train.

Section 2117 of title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime to 

break the seal or lock of any railroad car or other vehicle containing 

interstate shipments or to enter such vehicle with the intent to commit 

larceny therein, but again this section does not specifically mention 

the act of damaging the shipment.

After we had made this preliminary investigation of the Federal 

statutes, I personally discussed these acid incidents with the then U.S. 

attorney for the eastern district of Missouri.

Since the incidents which I have described received some coverage 

in the local press, his office had also made a preliminary investigation. 

They had also reached the conclusion tha t there wras no specific Fed ­

eral statute which covered the damaging of an interstate shipment, 

unless the matter could be brought within the racketeering statutes. 

These statutes generally involve some extortion, which could not be 

developed in our case.

After our research failed to reveal any Federal statu te which 

would cover the acts wdiich I have described, we considered the Missouri statutes. While Missouri has a statute which makes i t a misdemeanor to throw a stone or other thing at a train in motion, and a 

general staute which makes it a misdemeanor to maliciously injure 

property by the use of bombs or other explosives, there was not any 

felony in the Missouri statutes which covered the situation with 

which we were faced, with the possible exception of a statute which 

makes it a felony to tamp er with a motor vehicle.
10 WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

The Supreme Court of Missouri has construed the tampering 

statute sufficiently broadly so tha t it might be considered to cover 

the willful injuring of the motor vehicle of another.

Also in the Missouri statutes, if the property damaged is not a 

motor vehicle we could not find anything that would cover this kind 

of act.

From the above you will see that there is a very definite deficiency 

in the statutes of the United States when it comes to the matter of 

willfully or maliciously injuring property which is in the course 

of interstate transportation. And in the case which I have described 

there is also a deficiency in the State statutes.

The bill which you are considering today would make it unlawful 

for any person to willfully destroy, disable, or injure goods which 

are a part of interstate shipment, and would make it unlawful to 

break the seal of a rail car or other vehicle containing an interstate 

shipment with the intent to destroy all or any part of t hat shipment.

In order to establish under the proposed bill tha t a particular shipment was an interstate shipment, it is provided that the waybill or 

other shipping document shall be p rima facie evidence of the place 

from which and to which the shipment is made.

This follows closely the present provisions for establishing tha t 

property which is stolen from an interstate shipment was actually 

involved in interstate commerce.

The penalty provided for damaging or destroying a shipment is a 

fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 

years or both, except where the value of the shipment is less than $100 

when the fine is not more than $1,000 and the imprisonment not more 

than 1 year, the same as the penalties for theft of an interstate shipment provided in section 659 of title 18.

I'o r breaking into a freight vehicle with intent to destroy or damage 

a shipment the higher penalties apply in line with the present penalties for breaking into such a vehicle with inten t to commit larceny 

provided by section 2117 of title 18.

So far as I have been able to discover, there is no existing Federal 

statute which prohibits the acts specified in H.R. 2429. Appa rently 

this is one of those blanks in present criminal legislation which have 

never before come to light.

It is not difficult to understand why this is so. Traditionally 

freig ht moving in interstate commerce has been enclosed within the 

freight-carrying vehicle and there was little possibility of damaging 

it without wrecking the train.

However, with the advent of new equipment and new methods such 

as those depicted by the pictures which I have shown you, the freight 

is out in the open where it can be damaged or destroyed without doing 

any material damage to the railroad car.

1 do not want to represent to you anything about the motives of 

the person or persons who may have been responsible for the acid 

damage to the automobiles which were moving on our railroad last 

year. I should perhaps state that our investigation did establish that 

this was not an accident.

However, the fact that these vehicles were damaged apparently by 

some person who poured acid upon them and the fa ct that the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. attorney in whose district this
WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY 11

occurred could not legitimately conduct an investigation indicates that 

there is a need for additional legislation.

Private companies do not have the investigating force or the means 

at their disposal to properly conduct the type of investigation tha t 

would have been necessary in this instance.

Furthermore, our consideration of the various statutes indicated 

tha t even if the perpetrators of this act could have been caught, there 

would not be any adequate penalty.

A recent survey on a rather small number of railroads revealed 

numerous instances of damage, in the nature of vandalism, to automobiles being transported by rail.

Automobiles moving as a part of interstate shipments were found 

to have been damaged by bullet holes from rifleshots and shotgun 

blasts.

Bodies were dented and windows broken from rocks, pieces of lead 

pipe and other missiles being thrown at them while in transit.

Paint has been splattered on the automobiles and tires have been 

slashed and cut.

In one instance, of a movement of 30 trucks, 10 of the trucks were 

broken into and the seat upholstery slashed and cut with knives.

H.R. 2429 provides a penalty tha t would, in my opinion, deter the 

further commission of such acts. It is pretty well known tha t the 

people of this country respect the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 

its ability to ferret out the perpetrators of Federal crimes.

Certainly, since it is a Federal crime to steal goods which are part 

of an interstate shipment, it is logical tha t Congress should also provide tha t persons who intentionally damage goods which are a part 

of an interstate shipment should be subjected to substantially the same 

criminal penalties.

The acid incidents which I have described were the subject of a discussion between James R. Hoff a and Arthu r Motley, chairman of the 

board of the of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was televised 

over a national network on May 6, 1961. When Mr. Motley raised a 

question about these acid incidents, Mr. Hoffa’s reply wa s:

No, it ’s your distortion—it is your distortion of it. Did the FB I go out of 

business? Where a re the convictions?

And there was nothing else in tha t discussion that dealt with this 

subject.

I mention this because it points up the precise situation which I 

have described.

The answer is tha t the FB I did not go out of business since there 

is today no statute pu ttin g i t in the business and tha t there have been 

no convictions since none of these instances constitutes a violation of 

any existing Federal statute.

This is precisely the loophole which H.R. 2429 is designed to plug.

Certainly an anomalous situation exists today when, according to 

Federal law, it is unlawful to steal something from an interstate shipment, but i t is not unlawful to severely damage or totally destroy the 

same shipment.

The railroads urge tha t this committee and the Congress give prompt 

attention to this matter and alleviate the situation by enactment of 

H.R. 2429.

Thank you.
12 WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

Mr. Williams. Do I understand that title 18 of the code makes it a 

crime willfully to destroy or damage a shipment in interstate commerce by other modes of transporta tion to a greater or lesser degree, 

but th at transpo rtation by railroad is specifically left out?

Mr. Grinnell. Mr. Williams, I will have to say that Mr. Boren surprised me when he said that because I do not have the specific statute 

number of th at statute.

The the ft from an interstate shipment from all kinds of vehicles is 

covered in the same section.

The actual destroying of the truck shipment, I don’t have tha t 

specific statute. I don’t have a reference to it. So I will have to say 

1 don’t know on that.

Mr. Boren. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for an amendatory 

statement.

Mr. Grinnell and I discussed that point. It is possible that I was in 

error in saying tha t truck shipments were already covered. I gathered th at impression when I talked w ith the legislative counsel people 

here on the Hill, that all were covered except rails.

It is possible I am in error under tha t, but under this bill they would 

be covered.

Mr. Grinnell. Tha t is correct, yes.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Grinnell, in regard to the acid incident tha t you 

mentioned, in what State did tha t occur?

Mr. Grinnell. As near as we have been able to discover it occurred 

in the town of Dixon, Mo. Our investigation by our own forces in 

cooperation with our testing people which was the only group within 

our organization that has the chemical background and whatnot to test 

it, indicated that the acid had been poured on the t rain from a bridge 

near Dixon, which is about 135 miles west of St. Louis.

It is on our main line toward Tulsa.

Mr. Williams. Are there statutes in the Missouri law which would 

cover this crime ?

Mr. Grinnell. There is a statute in Missouri which makes it unlawful to throw anything at a train, but it is a misdemeanor.

Mr. Williams. The statute is not directed at the damaging of a 

shipment in commerce ?

Mr. Grinnell. No, sir; it is not. It is designed to cover the acts of 

vandalism.

Mr. Williams. I notice that the bill that you have drafted is directed 

toward the damaging of an interstate shipment.

In other words, this applies only to goods which are moving in interstate commerce. I presume tha t the premise for writing the law that 

way was that the Federal Government had no r igh t under the Constitution to legislation on matters that dealt purely with intrastate 

commerce; is tha t correct ?

Mr. Grinnell. That is correct.

Mr. Williams. Damaging intrastate shipments, I presume, does 

not constitute a problem anyway ?

Mr. Grinnell. No, si r; it does not.

I might say that we have had introduced in Missouri a bill to supplement their existing statutes to make the crime more severe in a case 

such as this. They have statutes, but they are nearly all misdemeanor 

statutes based on the general destruction of property.

We have undertaken to supplement their statutes.
WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY 13

Mr. Williams. Are there any questions?

Mr. Springer. Mr. Grinnell, the pa rt on page 2, under B, reads:

Except if the value of such shipments does not exceed $100.

Now, you put “value of such shipment” instead of the “value established” ; is that true, on purpose ?

Mr. Grinnell. Yes, sir; because we felt tha t it was best to make this 

statute as near to the theft statute as we could.

That is the language from the theft statute.

In other words, we thought the same Federal penalty should apply 

whether a man destroys or steals the shipment.

Mr. Williams. If there are no further questions, we thank you very 

much for your appearance.

Mr. Grinnell. Than k you very much for the opportunity to appear 

before you.

Mr. Williams. There being no further witnesses, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.

(The following letter was received for the rec ord :)

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C., May 17, 1961.

Hon. John Bell Williams,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : It was with regret tha t I found myself unable to appear at the

hearing by your subcommittee held Monday, May 15, 1961, on H.R. 2429, a bill 

to prohibit damage to, or destruction of, any shipment of freight or express 

moving in interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes. It had been 

my intention to appear and express my wholehearted support of H.R. 2429 aud 

to present my view that this legislation is necessary and desirable. I understand, however, that the case for the bill was ably presented by the two witnesses appearing before your committee and there probably is little I could add 

at this time tha t would not be repetitious.

You are doubtless aware tha t on Janu ary 18, 1961, I introduced H.R. 2962, 

a bill similar in most respects to H.R. 2429. The bill introduced by me was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It seems to me t hat the subject 

matter of these two bills is such tha t both might have been referred to the 

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I am pleased tha t your committee was able to hold hearing as promptly as it did and it is my sincere hope 

tha t H.R. 2429 will receive a favorable report by your subcommittee and by the 

entire Inte rsta te and Foreign Commerce Committee. This matter should receive 

prompt and favorable action by the Congress.

It will be appreciated if you will see th at a copy of this letter is incorporated 

in the record of the hearing before your committee in order tha t my views may 

be considered along with those submitted by the witnesses appearing before you.

With best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours,

James E. Van Zandt.

(Thereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

o
, • -

'■ >. . ; ;•/

V . • ' .. ' . . ■

/