The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-03-26
GOSS FIGHTS TRUNK LINE PLAN

rnand such approval. This sound and elastic plan of voluntary c0nsolidn- piled unless and until the provisions
 of section ], which compelled tine OmmissiOn to prOmuigmte the 21- system plan. are repealed. The cOm-
 mission, in it's letter of February 4, 1925, to the chairman of the senate
 committee on interstate commerce., advocated repeal of ulOse provisions of section and amendment of that
 section so that the statute would ad-
 init of these smaller meritOrious con-
 sOlidatiOns.
 "In the cOmmissi0n's letter of Feb- ruary 4, 1925, we have the mature
 judgment of the tribunal that dealt " tn this complex problem during {: period of several years, and it seems
 that when that problem is solved gie
 satisfactory solution will be i'm har-
 mOny with the recommendations of
 the commission in that letter.
 "Therc are several important req
 sons for withholding support of n
 statutory plan of railroad cOnsOlida-
 tiOn wh. oh cOntemplates creation of a limited number or certain number
 of railroad systems by any agency of
 the government. Several of those
 reasons are stated i'm the following paragraphs.
 .Impracticability: Adverting to the DFONlStOuS Ot StCtiOh o OA tHC
 state commerce act, which are repro
 duced on page 1 above. Our rail-
 roads were constructed for the pur-
 pose of serving, and beng supported, Dy our agriculture. manufacturing,
 mining, and forests, and by our sell ing and distributing activities. The
 railroads. like other business enter 7 priscs, have distinctive character , istics. It is impossible to assemble
 groups of railroads that. when con sOlidated, will conform wirl the pro-
 visions of section ;, which I refer to. It is impOss- ble to incorporate into
 a federal statute satisfactory specii- cations for all bridges or tunnels to
 be constructed in this country.
 Neither consolidation of railroads nor
 building of bridges are proper sub-
 jects for statutory strait-jackets.
 "Lack of foundation: Consolidation of railroads should be prompted by circumstances and conditions arising
 from operation of individual railroad enterprises. When the government undertakes to impose consultations, by force of statute, it w-n waste the time of its agencies in attempting to consolidate certain business enter prises which will not and can not be consolidated. I venture the Sugges- tfOn that there is no reasonable ex- pectatiOn that as muoi as 20 per cent of the railroad values, reflected in the comm .ssiOn's 21-year plan, can he consolidated in conformity with that plan.
 "Weak railway lines: The four teenth amendment to the COnstitu- iOn of the United States and numer- Ous decisions of the supreme court of the United States staEu in the path of gaing support for financially weak railroad lines thrOu,-l cOnsOiidat .Ons.
 charger systems not advantageous: The representatives of the traffic de- partments of large shipping enter priscs prefer to deal with the smaller railroad systems having executives who are informed of. and in contact with, local conditions. Those repre- fear ind florence of execu- tives of the proposed large railrOad systems and that their rate and serv- ice problems will be delegated to subOrdinates in those large systems w"lO will not make decisions and who will not have authority to act. It should be borne in mind that the shipping pubic did not propose my of these consolidated systems.
 ''The proposed systems show sub- stantial variation in mileage to be railway operating income. However, I doubt that such variation should condemn, or that uniformity of those items should commend any gwen plan of consolidation. For example, the Delaware, Lackawanna, and
 Western Railroad company is well able to compete with the Pennsyl- | Vania Railroad System, and to give |
  though comparison would develop [, material difference of mileage, in- vestment, and income of those two railroad systems. In fact the Lacka- wanna undoubtedly can furnish bet ter service and more effective cOm- | petition when being operated in it's | present independent position than when merged with any one of it's large competitors.
 '''rhe four trunk line plan reflects important departures from the 21- system plan promulgated by the in- terstate commerce commission on December 9th, 1929. 1t seems tO me that the shipping public served by ern Railroad and the Lehigh Valley | Railroad should and will resist the of those two strong | mes, which are efficiently operated and whiSI furnish valuable competi- tive service, into huge railroad sys- tems in which absentee landlord methods will serious impair present efficient service and valuable com petition.
 ..The Reading company's lines should not be merged in the Baiti- more and Ohio system, as is proposed | in the fOur-trunk line plan, but | by any large railroad system, in Or- der that those lines will provide a route into Philadelphia | for any cOnpet- tor of the large rail- way systems developed during the next 50 years.
 ''The Central Railroad company of New Jersey owns acres of valuable lands on the western shore of upper New York bay. This land is suited to use for railroad and steamship term- inaI facilities at one of the most con- Eested harbOrs in the world. Tine Central Railroad company of New Jersey should be kept an independent terminal line. available for the use of large railroad systems wSilch in the future may seek entrance to New York harbOr. Further. the Central Railroad of New Jersey, as such in- dependent terminal carrier, should he the operator of one or more belt-line railroads which necessarily must be constructed on the New Jersey shore in the near future to afford terminal and switchin" service for all of the railroad systems operating in that .ft., ,t,,.