Evening star., 1932-01-31
INTERSTATE MOTOR
TRUCKS LIMITED
Transportation of Passen'
gers and Commodities
Held OiSSimiIar.
BY T. r. DAHL,

Il
Vice President and Secretary the White Co.
The transportation of passengers oy
bus and the transportation OF property
by truck are entirely diSSlmllar services.
in considering the report OF one OF the
examiners of the Interstate Commerce
Commission on coordination OF motor
transportation, this distinction between
these two types Of transportation must
be clearly borne in mind.
Common Carriers.
Bus transportation whether inter
state or intraState, is a common carrier
operation. Bus transportation is SyS-
TEN Of transportation similar in many
respects to railroad transportation. The
bus operators themselves have at all
times desired interstate bus regulation
by Congress. They have fought for the
passage Of such a bill through the last
three sessions OF Congress. The din
Guilty has been in obtaining legislation
which was fair TO bus operation. The
National Grange and the Farm Bureau
believe that bus operations should not
be restricted because of alleged railway
competition, as they desire that facility
for the use of the people without re-
striction or taxation enacted for the
protection of any other transportation
agency. Interstate regulation OF motor
buses under a bill fair to that trans
portation agency will receive the sup
port before Congress of the bus opera
tors, manufacturers and others inter
ested in the development of bus trans
portation.
The prime difficulty in intelligently
discussing the regulation OF motor
trucks is that there has been so much
misinformation concering motor truck
operation that the motor truck is en-
tirely misunderstood 1t is true that
there is small reason for this miSunder-
standing, as the facts in reference to
motor truck operation are we'll estab-
lished by an impartial authority,
namely, the Bureau of Public Roads Of
the United States Department OF Agrl-
culture. Before it is possible to con-
slider what, if any, regulation should be
enacted controlling the operation OF
motor trucks, it is necessary to under
stand that 50 per cent of the motor
trucks in this country, by actual tratflc
count, are privately owned and pTl-
vately operated. This 81 per cent Of
the motor trucks of the country are,
therefore, in exactly the same class as
private passenger cars, as they are only
used by the owners of the trucks 70
transport their property over the public
highway
Contract Carriers.
Eleven per cent Of the motor trucks
of the country are contract carriers,
while but per cent of such trucks are
common carriers. From national
standpoint it is interesting to know that
but 2 per cent of the motor trucks in
this country today are engaged IN In
terState common carriage OF property.
Approaching this ownership OF motor
trucks, it is apparent that the motor
trucks of the country cannot by any
stretch Of the imagination be consld-
cred a transportation system. They are
as a whole units Of private tranSporta-
ton 1t is perfectly natural that this
should be 50, because the motor truck
is the vehicle which has replaced the
horse and wagon and is today, for all
practical purposes, a big horse and
wagon, carrying larger load and trav-
cling farther and faster, it is true, but
nevertheless doing the job that two
decades ago was done by the horse and
wagon. 1t is a nice legal question
whether it is possible TO regulate the
IL per cent of the motor trucks OF the
country which are today contract car
riers. 1t seems to us that under the
decisions Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States such contract carriers
cannot be regulated except under the
police powers, which type of regulation
is not contemplated in the report OF
the examiner. Theoretically the 7 per
cent common carrier motor trucks
should be regulated, and they are today
regulated in about 35 States of the
Union. They are regulated as a mat
ter Of law but not as matter OF fact,
as that law is Just as difficult to en-
force in the States as prohibition. The
oretically the 2 per cent OF motor trucks
engaged in interstate commerce should
be regulated as common carriers. 1t is
q serious question whether it is worth
building up an intricate system Of in
terState regulation affecting but per
cent Of the motor trucks Of the coun-
try. 1t has been the experience in
States in which motor truck common
carrier license fees have been high and
operating restrictions drastic that such
common carriers have discontinued
their common carrier business and be-
come contract carriers. 1t is probable
that this would be the result of inter-
state regulation. In other words, the
common carrier motor truck engaged in
interstate commerce operation is al
ready subject to the competition Of
contract carrier trucks, which fully
protects the public as to rates and
service.
A clear understanding of the service
and operation OF motor trucks, based
on the factual studies of the Bureau of
Public Roads of the United States De-
partment Of Agriculture, will go long
way toward solving the question of
what, if any, regulation in interstate
commerce is necessary in the public
interest in so far as common carrier
motor trucks are concerned.