Evening star., 1926-10-17

|
trv the scene now shifts to Washing
ton for the final act Of the most sig
nificant and far-reaching investigation
ever conducted by the United States
Government into this phase OF Amer
ica's transportation facilities.
The hearings which will open ne
fore Commissioner Esch and Exam
liner Flynn at the Interstate com,
merce Commission on October % Will
| mark the climax of long series OF
| similar courts" before which prac-
tically every leading shipper and every
interested group has appeared during
the past few months. presenting thelr
| facts views and opinions. so tnat leg
islation-if II Is deemed necessary
will he intelligent, comprehenslVe'
! equitable and salutary In erect.
Two Distinct Phases:
The Washington hearings may be
divided into two distinct phases. FIRST,
there is the strictly local aspect, ana.
secondly, the national viewpoint. AS
at the hearings in other large centers.
those to he held here will he CON
! cerned in no small degree with prob-
lens affecting the city and surround
ing territory. In that respect devel-
| opments here may bear some marked
! differences when compared with the
San Francisco or Chicago hearings.
Fundamentally, however. 1t is expect
ed that their characteristics will be
| quite similar
Furthermore. since Washington Is
the National Capital and since these
hearings are the concluding ones, 1t
is only natural that they should ne
| looked upon, in measure at least. AS
something of a summation of what
has gone before, and therefore as
| sumo a more national and basically
| others.
| This may be only a state Of mind. vet
it is 40 pronounced that 1t cannot he
| overlooked in any analytical discus
sion Of the whole question.
On the other hand, there Is definite
reason for regarding the Washington
hearings as Of somewhat greater I'M
portance, perhaps, than the earlier
ones.
Opened New Field of Inquiry.
When the Interstate Commerce
Commission entered upon this investi-
cation it's detailed working knowledge
of the problem was more or less Inn
tied. There had never been wide
spread survey such as this on the
subject Of regulation. and consequent
ly there were no authorities to take
off library shelves. The information
had 20 he acquired in the field from
actual contact. Since those who con-
Quoted the hearings were diligent and |
earnest seekers after facts which no |
one before had acquired. it was nat
ural that as the hearings progressed |
the store of data became larger. the |
objective became more clearly defined,
| with the result that the Washington
hearings, by virtue Of being the last,
must be regarded in a newer light.
This is by no means far-fetched as
sumption, but quite natural and Oh
vious development.
Washington shippers and other in
terested groups. presenting problems
! of a definitely local nature. will he !
prominent at the hearings here. All |
classes or groups vitality concerned |
! with the question of regulation will |
come before Commissioner Esch and |
Examiner Flynn to present their |
arguments for or against regulation
for limited supervision or for score
, of other phases of the subject as II
shapes up when viewed both in the |
large and in detail Then. in addition,
the national viewpoint will be injected
by the representatives of other groups.
Situation Here Unusual.
While 1t is not intended or necessary |
here to go into details of Washingtons
) shipping problems. 1t should he point
ed ont that in considering the local |
mind that an unusual condition exists |
, ! in the District of Columbia, the like |
OF which Is found nowhere else in the
o United States. And this condition Will
9 have to be cared for in any regulatory |
I legislation. The situation mentioned
is that a great percentage of Wash
ineton truckage and bus transporta-
tion is interstate. due to the small |
y area of the District of Columbia and |
G the nearness Of two States. Maryland /
Y and Virginia. While in many States
n interstate truck haulage is but, say, |
t per cent Of the total business, here
v it may be IS per cent.
: Returning to the whole broad prob
= lem. it has been developed by the |
E hearings-and this doubtless Will
come out at the inquiry here-that
E there are three classes of truckers |
They are as follows
(aD Common carriers-thOSe operat- |
o ing between fixed terminals and over
!. regulate routes-for hire.
] fb) Contract carriers-those operat- |
n ing exclusively for one or more large
4 firms in the distribution of their COM
!, modities CThe Supreme Court has
r held that contract carriers are not
e common carriers and cannot be regu- !
lated as such.)
. (c) Private carriers-thOse using the |
5 truck for distribution of their com.
2 mOditloS. III Is quite ReneTdllN dSGeeu
. that this form of haulage is not sub |
r iect to Federal regulation.
Sentiment FavOrs Regulation.
1t is indicated by the trend of the |
hearings held at other centers that |
4 there is distinct feeling in favor OF !
n regulatory legislation for the motor |
! bus; that is, the vehicle engaged in |
o the business Of transporting passen- |
= gers. but there is less united thought |
l. on the part Of truckers for such |
J.. law. 1t appears to be true, in other !
< words that there Is considerably !
o more desire for bus regulation for |
. the protection of franchises than for |
h truck control.
Il For one thing, the bus owners. par
y ticularly in the Western sections of |
l. the country are more closely knit In |
? thought and action. and the structure |
c Is made up of a relatively small num-
{ Der of large operators. The truck /
e owners on the other hand are COM
8 posed chiefly Of smaller operators. and !
in many cases-this is particularly |
true in New York and the other great |
centers-these small operators for
merly were teamsters. They desire
no regulation of any kind. and there
Is feeling that such operators need |
little, IL any, supervision. They may !
run truck from New York to Jersey |
d City and back again. Regulation un-
( der such circumstances would be diff
= ficult. and perhaps serve no very
J. I'm porta mt end