The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-01-24
HINES DECLARES RAILROADS NOT
 IMPOVERISHED

Washington, Jan. 24 - Assertions that the railroads were turned back to their owners after the period of government contol in broken down condition were denied today by Walker D. Hines, in a statement before the Interstate Commerce Com mission, in which the former director general of railoadS said he believed the government had substantially -over--maintained the equipment of the roads
 Mir Hines told the commission that reports at the end of federal control
 showed locomotives to be in dis
 tinctly better condition than at the beginning and the condition of freight
 cars to compare favorably'' with that time. It must be remembered, he added, that both generally were in exceedingly poor condition at the beginning of federal operation.
 Although there had been some shortage of maintenance in rails, cross ties and ballast on some roads, MT. Hines said this had been f'greatly exaggerated" in the general discus i sion. There could be no better proof ] of the condition of the roads when l turned back, the former director i general said, than the unprecedented ! volume of business which they began to handle within four months of that time, in 1920. without, he asserted, : any marked improXement in the con ditfon of their rolling stock.
 Stating that critics of the railroad administration among the rail eXecL- lives appeared to take as a. starting point the idea that their equipment was in ideal condition when the gov eEnment took control. Mir. Hines cit ed the testimony of President Req of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in 1917 in the advance rate case be- fore the Interstate Commerce Com mission. MT Req then Gecelared in effect he said that it had been inn possible to maintain passenger car equipment, that the continuous ser vice of freight cars had left great numbers in need of repairs, and To- comotive repairs also had suffered from inefficient md insufficient la Dor.
 Although some who criticized the administration maintenance policy seemed to take the position that it should have placed no limitation cn .inaintenance expenditures. MT Hines said, the government had adopted the '.perfectIy proper limitation" that sonably with the governments con tract obligations, except in unusual , Circumstances. In defense of this policy the former director general 1e- called that every railroad strictly limits it's officers in maintenance eX- pense.
 It was better in doubtful cases for the governmnt to fall somewhat short of the contract obligation in mainte- nance than to exceed it. he said, be- cause the contract expressly protected the, company in the former case whereas the governments claim foI excess was not so clearly established.
 MT. Hines said the railroad admins tratiom had Substantially overmain- tained" rolling equipment. generally because 1t wanted the maintenance put on equipment which it could inn inediately use. He contradicted 2 statement which he said had been made before the. committee by Danie' Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, to the effect that the administration had ordered a change in the car repair standards asserting that the tests of inspection Sunder federal control were probably more strict then than prior to it.