Evening star., 1932-01-10
u. S. Transportation Menaced

tions over the highways, he makes
clear that the rights Of those engaged
In this business at the time any Iegis-
lation may be enacted should be safe
guarded, and that Congress itself should
say just how far competitive services
should be allowed.
TT is in the public interest ana
economically sound that the avaff-
ability and adequacy of existing trans
portation facilities should be consid-
cred, as well as the effect that q pro-
posed service will have on existing
transportation agencies, the continued
operation of which Is important to the
territory served by then," the examiner
says.
Danger Of Overproductien-
"Overproduction Is quite as much a
disturbing and diSarranging factor in
the business Of transportation as over
production in any other industry"
Flynn warns. The generally accepted
theory In the early days of railroading
was that there should be as many
lines built as possible with unrestricted
competition. Rate wars, rebates, stock
jobbing, financial failures, unjust dis
elimination, duplication and waste
were products Of this system; they
NDNS~~ S@&S @SS w IOlllulGEGG LII
1887.
The transportation act. 1920. recog
nized that the principle of unrestricted
freedom OF competition between rail
carriers as an assurance OF public bene-
Mt was unsound and that protection of
existing transportation agencies against
unWarranted depletion of revenues was
quite as important to the public interest
as unlimited competitive service and
established the policy of permitting
such service only where the commission
found that 1t was required by public
convenience and necessity. One of the
factors almost always entering into a
determination of this question Is
whether the available volume of busi-
ness in the territory involved Is sufi-
cient to support competitive lines. Ex-
perience had demonstrated that there
is minimum of economic loss incident
to waSteful competition where competi-
tlon In transportation Is regulated and
guided into useful channels. The public
is entitled to safe and dependable motor
carrier service at all times at reasonable
and nondiscriminatory rates. Existing
conditions make it difficult for common
carrier motor vehicle operators to fur
nish such service. Motor carriers op-
Grating in interstate commerce are free
to come and go as they please. They
may operate In good weather and cease
operations when it Is bad. They may
haul such commodities as they select
and refuse to carry those which they
believe to be undesirable traffic. They
may leave one territory for another or
cease business entirely. They may prac-
tice determinations in rates or service.
Railroads are required by law to be
ready at any time and at all points 10
meet the reasonable needs Of the ship
ping or travelling public. Interstate
busses or trucks do not have such re-
sponsibilities.
Unrestricted competition Is not
necessarily helpful to any industry.
Competition between carriers that Is
wasteful or unnecessarily expensive lays
an added burden upon the public. Ths
elimination Of wasteful or unduly costly
competition In rates or service Is de-
sirable."
Once Urged Regulation.
The present report comes nearly four
years after the Interstate Commerce
Commission, on the basis of findings in
a buS-truck study by Flynn, urged ON
Congress that busses be put under reg
ulation. At that time, however, the
commission said 1t saw no need for reg
ulating trucks, as the examiner pro-
posed, though conceding such necessity
might develop.
Parties TO the present proceeding, who
include all interests conceivsbly con-
cerned with transportation, have until
February 9 to file briefs, which will be
followed by oral arguments the first
three days in March. .-...-
Afterwards the commission will issue
its findings for the benefit of Congress,
which Is expected to take sore action
at the present session after having the
matter before it in one form or another
since 1928. .-,