Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-05

in the public interest, which is the real
test of all legislation.
This principle was recognized IN the
act of 1920, but little progress has been
made since that date. In ACCORDANCE
with the mandate of the law requiring a
complete plan of uniflcation, such 3
plan was submitted by Prof. Ripley OF
Harvard, which was not accepted by the
Interstate Commerce Commission. Later
the commission submitted tentatively
its own plan, but finally recommended
to Congress the repeal OF this manoate
as an impracticable requirement.
However, the commission is again work.
ing upon such a plan, but as yet mas
not reached a final decision.
Recommendation is also made ID for
bidding any unif1cation without the
pproval of the Interstate Commerce
commission: (2) power to reject unlt1-
7tion unless specific line or lines are
lcludcd; and 80 some other minor
Ranges.
Amendments to the present law to
facilitate unification have been urged
BY the commission, and also by PreSl-
dents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.
I introduced bill in the last Con-
gress, and the committee on interstate
commerce reported it, to facilitate uni
II.
lean Railway Association, representing
the Glass A roads: by the Short Line
Association. representing Glass and G
roads. by the Industrial Traffic League,
representing the shipping public; ana
bv economists and students of transport
tation. In the hearings on the Dill no
one appeared in opposition to the pro-
posal.
The touchstone of this proposal is
the public interest. Legislator 10 DE-
justified must meet this test. Whne IL
should respect the rights of the owner
in profitable investment, and rights OF
labor in a proper standard of wage, 1t
must also respect the rights OF the pup
lie in adequate service. which. after ALL
is the final test of all legislation.
In the public interest, unif1cation must
retain necessary competition. 1t must
avoid any undue lessening OF existing
competition Competition in service Is
the SureSt guarantee of adequate pup
lie interest, while absence of compete
ton is the certain abandonment OF ace
uuate service. UnifiCation on these
lines will insure economy in operation.
The larger system can make better use
of its equipment 1t will permit more
direct routing of cars, and less BACK
hauling of freight. 1t will make avail
able direct lines for fast freight. It
will reduce the cost of switching. 1t
will insure Standardization of methods
and equipment maximum utilization OF
shops and equipment, and concentra-
ton of purchasing agencies.
Unification will doubtless insure bet
ter service by strengthening credit
facilities. which will permit additions
and betterments in equipment and
roadbeds. A great system will be in
position to make direct and fast ship
mentS. to supply the demand for cars
of special type, and to give regular and
more adequate and satisfactory service
by each system connecting with an
other system. Such a plan will permit
the operation of solid trains to and
from large centerS with maximum
use of terminals. It would insure uni
form service throughout the year. 1t
would also lessen and simplify the
problems of regulation. 1t is obvious
that the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion, now dealing with nearly 1000
cor'nanieS. with their varied COM
plants, would be greatly relieved If
these could be reduced to a score or
more Of systems.
Whatever else may be urged as argu-
ment for the unification of roads, the
primary or conclusive Argument is the
strengthening of the weak lines, first. to
insure more adequate transportation
and, secondly, to avoid Government
ownership. fully agree with the late
Senator Cummins that we have the al
tentative of preserving the weak lines
through unification, or the adoption of
Government ownership of transporta-
ton.
There are many railroad companies
totaling thousands of miles of road,
which have ceased to be profitable
either through lack of equipment. or
traffic, by the exhaustion of sources,