Evening star., 1946-07-17
Letters to The Star
Another Reply to Columnist
on the Bulwinkle Bill
To the Editor of The Star:

On July IL IoWeH Mellett wrote an
article concerning the so-called Bull
Wrinkle bill" which displays inexcusable
lack of information. He describes this
bill as one designed to make the rail-
no-trespass sign set up against the
Justice Department." He says that
although Representative Bulwinkle in
troduced 1t, credit for the authorship
is commonly given to j. Carter Fort,
general counsel of the Association OF
American Railroads" He says further
that this bill passed the House "appar-
emily on one of those days when nobody
was looking" He further states that
there were no committee hearings In
the House on this BILL but that the
"rumpus" oyer it caused the Senate ITO
take real look at it,
All Of these statements are false AS
Mr.. Pelley pointed out in his reply in
The Star last Saturday there were
extensive hearings october 9-22, 1945
inclusive, before a subcommittee of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce of the House In view of all
this the rather prominent member of
the House of Representatives" who was
taken by surprise when he found the
bill had passed the House (by a vote
of 277-45) must have been the orig
inal Rip Van Wrinkle
After the extensive hearings before
the House committee a report was
submitted by Mr.. Bulwinkle on Novem-
Der Is, 1945, without dissenting vote.
In that report 1t was stated; 1T is
recognized by all who are familiar with
the problems of transportation that
the carriers subject to the Interstate
Commerce Act cannot satisfactorily
meet their duties and responsibilities
hereunder, and the basic purposes of
that act cannot be effectively carried
out unless such carriers are permitted
to engage in joint activities to a sub
stantial extent. The public interests
will not be served If there is permitted
to continue the recently created state
OF uncertainty as to the extent to which
carriers may engage in joint activity
without risk of violating the antitrust
laws"
Extended Senate Hearings.
This bill, having passed the House by
an overwhelming vote, then was the sub
ject Of extensive hearings before the
Senate Interstate Commerce Committee
Later 1t was reported out by that COM
mittee with only two dissenting votes
There had been extensive hearings
also in May and June, 1943, in connec-
ton with Senate bill S. 942 having the
same purpose as the so-called Bulwinkle
bill, and which was drafted by the In
terstate Commerce Commission. which
always has recognized that conferences
concerning rates are essential If chaotic
conditions, hurtful to shippers and car
riers alike, are to be avoided At those
hearings also there was unanimnty
among the shipping interests that rate
conferences should be permitted and
that the railroads and other transpor-
tation agencies should be exempted from
the Sherman Antitrust Act to that ex-
tent. Joseph B. Eastman, then director
of ODT testified extensively in favor of
that bill and 1t had the full Endorsement
Of the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion. Similarly, at the more recent
hearings on the Bulwinkle bill, Com
missioner Aitchison testified for the In
terstate Commerce Commission and
urged the passage of that bill, with GER
tain suggested amendments.
President Theodore Roosevelt, who
advocated and was largely responsible
for the 1906 amendments to the inter-
state commerce law, stated in his mes
sage to Congress December 8, 1907, that
90 to attempt to control these cor
porations by law suits means to impose
upon both the Department of Justice
and the courts an impossible burden: 1t
is not feasible to carry on more than a
limited number Of such suits. Such a
law to be really effective must, Of course,
be administered by an executive body.
and not merely by means of law suits "
And, in his message of December, 1908
President Theodore Roosevelt said: The
railways of the country should be put
completely under the Interstate Com
merce Commission and removed from
the domain Of the antitrust law
President Franklin D. Roosevelt on
May 4, 1888, sent message to Congress
recommending the appointment of a
Federal co-ordinator of transportation
and stated: Our broad problem is. so
to coordinate all agencies of transpor-
tation as to maintain adequate service"
He also suggested that the Federal CO.
ordinator to be appointed should work
with groups of railroads" SO as to "en-
courage, promote or require action on
the part of the carriers In order to avoid
duplication of services, prevent waste
and encourage financial reorganiza-
tions"
"Brieing" the President.
Subsequently the regulatory powers
of the Interstate Commerce Commission
have been so amplified and broadened
that transportation agencies are now
regulated not only as to rates but as to
every one Of their activities, SO that, as
Mr.. Bernard M. Baruch has stated: "It
is difficult to see why any branch of the
Government, like the Department of
Justice, should take action against the
railroads which were already subject to
regulation by the Interstate Commerce
Commission"
The last sentence Of the article by Mr..
Mellett is one for which he should be
ashamed 1t states: "On the chance
that the bill may pass the Senate, how
ever. the Justice Department has al
ready briefed the President pretty thor
oughly and feels confident of obtaining
a Veto
1t is hardly possible that the President