s (A HE 2757 W05 BANCROFT LIBRARY o THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BANCROFT KEWTFIELD A SIMPLE and SURE : SOLUTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM BY Judge Peter S.jGrosscup OF THE U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals THE ONLY EFFICIENT PLAN PROPOSED ABSOLUTELY JUST TO SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS INDORSED BY THE LEADING MANUFACTURERS, SHIPPERS AND CONSUMERS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES FREIGHT PUBLISHING CO. PUBLISHERS OF FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM 116 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY WHY THE GROSSCUP PLAN IS THE BEST. No Business Man in This Country Can Afford to Be " Too Busy " to Neglect Reading This Concise Statement The Subject Vitally Concerns Every Manu- facturer, Shipper, Consignee and Jobber Here Is the Freight Rate Leg- islation Situation in a Nutshell It Is a Duty You Owe to Yourself to Read This Carefully. "~FHE Esch-Townsend Bill, which provided for the placing in the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to name a new freight rate found by the Commission to be unjustly ex- cessive or unreasonable, and which passed the House of Representa- tives last winter, is dead. It died when the Fifty-ninth Congress ex- pired in March, 1905. It was an ill-considered and unwise measure, and suited no one. If it had passed Congress it would have been of no possible help to shippers. Under a mistaken impression, and as it was the only measure before the country at the time, it was in- dorsed by some shippers, but was vigorously opposed by other ship- pers and consignees and by the entire railroad world. Had it passed, the railroads would have fought it on constitutional grounds, if on no other, and it would have been years before the question of its con- stitutionality alone was settled. When nothing better offered, FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM, as the recognized mouthpiece of the great manufacturing and ship- ping public of the United States, advocated legislation along the lines of the Quarles-Cooper Bill (in some of its provisions similar to the Esch-Townsend Bill), but as there is no chance of such legis- lation being enacted, it is now advocating the adoption of the plan put forth recently by Judge Peter S. Grosscup to settle the transportation problem, as FREIGHT is convinced that this plan will actually give immediate relief to shippers, and will entirely do away with the protracted and fruitless hearings before the Commission, which now make the administration of the Interstate Commerce Law practically ineffectual. In other words, the Grosscup plan is a short cut to justice. The proposition briefly is this : Create a transportation department of the Government, head- ed by a live, aggressive man, and give to this secretary or com- missioner the best assistants (some of them taken from the rail- road ranks) the country can afford. This department is to have the sole duty of investigating, arbitrating and prosecuting all com- plaints of discrimination, unjust rates and unfair practices of every description by the railroads, and if unable to settle disputes be- tween shippers and carriers informally, is to present the com- BANCROFT L/ plaints at once to a special court of transportation, to be created, // L 2 the judges of which will be required to devote their entire time to traffic questions. The judges will sit together in Washington and separately throughout the country, so that complaints will be received and acted upon with the least possible delay. The department of transportation, acting for the shipper, will prose- cute the case. The shipper will be put to no expense for coun- sel. The only appeal from this special court will lie to the Su- preme Court of the United States, and then solely on questions of law. It is proper to say that opponents of the Grosscup plan declare that it would give the legislative power to the proposed court, and this, it is claimed, would be in violation of the Constitu- tion. That this view is erroneous is most plainly and convincingly set forth by Judge Grosscup on pages 10, n and 12. Under the present procedure the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion, at the request of a shipper or on its own motion, may institute an inquiry of complaints of unreasonable rates or unjust discrimina- tion, and if it finds that the carrier has violated the law, it may order the defendant road to cease its unlawful practices, but it has no power to enforce its decisions. The only method allowed under the law is for it to apply to the Circuit Court of the United States to compel the carrier to obey the Commission's decision. The hearings before the Commission frequently take many months, and usually considerably more than a year elapses from the time of filing of the complaint before the Commission renders its decision. Then if the case goes to the Circuit Court a large part of the testimony taken before the Commission is gone over again, and much new evidence is generally submitted by the defendant railroad, so that in some cases it is six or seven years before a final determination is reached; the average time consumed, in such circumstances, is three or four years. Even if power were given to the Commission to enforce its de- cisions and to fix freight rates, which would be the actual result under the Esch-Townsend Bill or any similar measure, it should be remem- bered that the railroads would still have the constitutional right to appeal from the decision of the Commission should they believe that the new rates named would be confiscatory deprive them of property without due process of law and there is no doubt that the railroads would fight every decision of the Commission along such lines to the court of last resort, and by means of injunction proceed- ings would still make it impossible for the shipper to obtain relief for years. Every case in which the rights of a citizen or corporation are involved must ultimately go to the courts. The Grosscup plan takes the complaint at once to the courts and will afford relief to shippers within a few months. The agitation to remedy existing conditions has extended over seven or eight years, and what has been the result? Nothing. What shippers want is something accomplished, something done. Shippers want to know that when they suffer from injustice on the part of the common carriers they will obtain speedy relief. As Judge Grosscup concisely sums up the situation: "The core of the evil as things stand at present is that nothing is done. My suggestion is only this: Set into motion machinery that will be fair to the public and the railroads, and thus do something toward giving the country equal conditions and fair rates. Such machinery a department to investigate and prosecute, and a court to decide would give the shipper what he has "not now: a quick apprehension by a competent department of any given wrong and a speedy adjudi- cation and rectification of it by an impartial and competent tribunal. Such machinery would give the country what it has not now ade- quacy, intelligence and uniformity in rate regulation. With the right man at the head of the department, with the right judges in the court, there need be no fear on the part of shippers that the plan will be inefficient, and no fear on the part of the carriers that it will work injustice, and that is all that either party in this discussion has the right to expect." The Grosscup plan is a simple and entirely feasible proposition, and is the only efficient and sure solution of the transportation prob- lem thus far advanced by anyone. It is fair to the shippers and fair to the carriers. It deserves and is receiving the support of leading manufacturers, producers, shippers and consignees of the country. The following pages are fully worth the most careful and painstaking study of every business man in the United States. If there is anything in the Grosscup plan you do not fully un- derstand, write to the Editor of FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM. A Simple and Sure Solution OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM V By JUDGE PETER S. GROSSCUP, Of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Introduction. WHATEVER may be its legal status, a policy of discrimination that gives to one set of persons in a community rates that are refused to the balance of that community, or to certain communities rates that are refused to other communities, is a policy of injustice, unjust both to the persons and communities discriminated against and unjust to the people of the United States as an entirety. It is none the less unjust that the means used to accomplish the discrimination may have been indirect. Secret rebates are as unjust as direct differences in rates. Arrangements by which the private cars of a particular shipper are hauled at a reduction that substantially overmeasures the capital invested by the shipper irr such cars, and arrangements to divide rates with shippers, who pretend to be oper- ating independent railroads that in fact are only switches, in a ratio not measured by legitimate switch charges all these, and all other devices of their kind, are equally unjust, for the injustice of the thing, whether it be accomplished directly or by circumlocution, is in the fact that one set of shippers are thus enabled to get their goods into a market at a cost that competitive shippers cannot obtain. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that it is not discrimination within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Law to charge the big shipper a rate less than the little shipper. I know the argument on which that is founded, and I appreciate its strength. It is true that it costs less per ton to carry a large bulk than a small bulk. It is true that a less percentage of profit can be reasonably charged to the wholesaler than to the retailer. But these arguments made in behalf of discrimination miss the mark, miss the whole core of the subject. In this country there is no such thing as size to a business man. The man of little size expects to get big. He has a right to get big. He has a right to have the atmosphere of equal opportunity and equal conditions in which to grow, and excepting, of course, some unit, such as a ton or a car, the charge ought to be the same for the little as for the big shipper. I say, as the law now stands on that subject, what is permitted under the law is an unjust thing and ought to be corrected by law. Now with this law on the subject of rebates, both direct and indirect, and this amendment to the law upon the subject of dis- crimination, governed by the size of shipments or the amount that each shipper is giving to the railroads yearly, it seems to me that the present law is pretty full and competent to meet the conditions. I do not believe that we need much new prohibitive legislation. We have on our statute books already ample provision against rebates, except perhaps for some amendments on the subject of discrimina- tion between those who ship on a large scale and those who ship on a small scale. I do not believe we need much, if any, legislation on the subject of reasonableness of rates. The present Interstate Com- merce Act in one of its very first sections provides that all rates shall be reasonable and just. And it seems to me that the present law as it now stands is able to meet the question of the unreasonableness of rates. What is the law as it now stands? Upon a complaint being made to the Circuit Court that a rate is unreasonable the court, if it finds that the rate is unreasonable, may enter an order finding such rate unreasonable, and thereafter the railroad company is not at lib- erty to charge that rate. Before the Circuit Court can find a rate unreasonable it must first find, as a postulate, what is a reasonable rate, so that the courts under the present law have not simply to find judicially what rate is unreasonable, but to find a postulate to that judicial determination what rate would be reasonable. And I take it that in any given case where the court declared that the rate complained of was unreason- able, and that the given named rate was reasonable, it would not be the policy, it could not be the policy of the railroads of this coun- try to fly in the face of that judgment of the court. I take it for granted that the railroad companies would not on the morrow charge a rate other than that pronounced by the court to be reasonable; for if they did, such charge would subject them to immediate reprosecu- tion for the same offense for which the company had been tried the day before. Thus, through its power to determine that a given rate is unrea- sonable, the court has practically the judicial power to deternfine what rate is reasonable and to enforce that power. The core of the evil is that as things now stand nothing is done. In my judgment the reason of this is, not so much the difficulty of the law as it is the difficulty of its administration. One of the reasons is the incompetency, the total incompetency of the Circuit Court to pass upon that question. What is the daily life of a Circuit Court judge? One day he is exploring the intricacies of a patent case, fol- lowing it through all its meanderings to its incubation away back in some inventor's brain. Another day he is hearing a personal injury case, with his sympathies in rigid control lest they should outweigh his judgment. On another day he is hearing some customs case, determining whether the particular goods under consideration come within this or within some other classification of the law. Another day he is pursuing the meanderings of some chancery case. Every day brings up ^some new subject covering some wide area upon which he has to be specially educated for the day's judgment. Now call him from this judgment seat to determine a question that turns, not upon the particular rate that is laid before him, but which must take in the whole horizon of the country's commerce that is as perplexing, as confusing, as intricate as the wire fences that the Russians put around their fortifications in the Far East to keep out the Japanese. Call him to take out of its place with the judicial forceps one of this class of cases, as the watchmaker would take out a wheel or a peg from a watch. It is a thing he can't do without taking out the whole inside of the whole rate or transporta- tion system; call him to decide that question, and you will, submit one of the greatest, the most perplexing, the most difficult questions to a man who has had no education, no vision of the subject upon which he is expected to rule. Thus I say that the Circuit Court is an incompetent court. In the nation there resides the reserve power of supervision and control a power that the nation must exercise in the interest of equal citizenship. I do not believe that the Interstate Commerce Commission, either as at present organized or as it could be or- ganized, is a public body to whom we should give this great power. The Interstate Commerce Commission from its very inception has attempted to follow what it regarded as its judicial functions, rather than its administrative functions. And this difficulty is inherent in the situation. One thing is as axiomatic as the Government itself, from which no popular Government can escape and that is, that the man who inquires and prosecutes ought not to be the judge, and that the man who sits in judgment ought not to be the man who inquires or prosecutes. Would it be right of me, having enjoined some of these railroads from giving rebates or the different trusts under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to go out and hunt up instances of the vio- lation of that injunction? The moment that I get into the work of limiting up proof I destroy my equilibrium and poise as a judge. The judge who tries to remain a judge becomes an inefficient and unsuccessful prosecutor; and the prosecutor who tries to be an effi- cjent and a successful prosecutor unfits himself at that instant to be a judge. The two functions are incompatible and should be sep- arated. They were separated in the Interstate Commerce Act. The Commission was looked upon by the framers of that act as a board of inquiry, and, having made inquiry, the board to prosecute. The Circuit Court was looked upon as the power to judge. But for rea- sons I have named the commission has failed. For the reasons I have named the court has failed. The Plan. I would put in the place of the present Commission some depart- ment of the Government, like the Comptroller of the^Currency, like the Secretary or Commissioner of Corporations some executive, ready, mobile, active department of the Government. Let a department of the Government be created at least a bureau whose sole duty it would be to see that the railroads obey the law; which would feel that its sole duty was not to judge but to find out; not to adjudicate, but to complain; not to sit on a bench, but to go out and look up where complaints had been made by citizens that a wrong was being done to them or to their community. Give to that department the aid of the ablest men that can be found in the country. One of the great difficulties in public life is that the public does not compete with the corporation in getting the. best brains that the country pos- sesses. In pursuit of such men I would go into the railroad ranks. I know railroad men just as public spirited, just as impartial and ten times as able as I am, who, for a reasonable salary and a safe tenure could be detached from their present occupations and made servants of the Government. In that way I would give to the Government the efficiency and ability that the railroads enjoy, and the impartiality that the Government ought to have. Then, having equipped the Government with a department for in- quiry and prosecution a department whose sole duty it would be to inquire and prosecute I think it would be wise to create a sep- arate court of transportation, giving its members a life tenure like the present judges of the United States courts, but requiring them to devote their entire time to railroad cases. I would construct a court taken from among the best men of the country, with lay members, perhaps from some of these railroad men who are so experienced in this whole complex subject of rate making, and give to that court the exclusive jurisdiction of transportation. I would not bother it with patents, nor with chancery mysteries, nor with personal injury cases, but I would make it incumbent on and profitable to them to study the whole railroad situation as if they were the servants of the road, so far as proficiency was concerned, but to be the unbiased and impersonal servants of the people so far as justice was concerned. Let there be five or seven judges. Let them sit together in Wash- ington and separately throughout the country. Whenever a com- plaint was awaiting investigation a judge of the court would be on hand to give immediate investigation. It would be unnecessary to create any great number of offices for such a court. The clerks of the United States courts as they now exist could be clerks ex-officio of this court. The marshals of the United States could be marshals ex-officio of this court. The juries assembled at every point where United States Circuit and Dis- trict courts are sitting could be made interchangeable with juries in the courts where this court would sit. This court could go on the circuit individually, member for member, whenever complaint had been made, and within a week, two weeks or three weeks at most, after this executive officer of the Government had lodged his com- plaint, would have the machinery in motion that would bring final judgment. If the case was so large or complex that it ought to have the judgment of the whole court he could reserve it for the whole court, and within a month the whole court could sit at some central point, such as Washington, and consider the case. But often he could dispose of it himself, as your judges and different great centres of the country are disposing of questions just as large, involving just as much to the people who are litigants. I would equip the court with all the powers of a court of chancery to enforce its judgments. The court could sit en bane at stated periods to hear appeals or whenever an unusual case was pressing it. Rate railroad problems could be decided by the court en bane, in the first instance, instead of a judge individually. There would be ap- peals on constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court would preserve its power of super- vision by means of writs of certiorari, such as now prevail in the Circuit Court of Appeals, for the purpose of preserving the uniform- ity of the law. Such machinery a department to investigate and prosecute, and a court to decide would give the shipper what he has not now a quick apprehension by a competent department of any given wrong and a quick adjudication and rectification of it by an impartial and competent tribunal. Such machinery, too, would give the country what it has not now adequacy, intelligence and uniformity in rate regulation. My suggestion is only this: Set into motion machinery that will be fair to the public and the railroads, and thus do some- thing toward giving the country equal conditions and fair rates. Let me suggest to my railroad friends that a solution so simple and so effective ought to be made the policy, not simply of the think- ing people, who are not interested in railroad rates except as look- ers-on, but of the railroad men themselves. The greatest aid, the most efficient help, to the socialistic movement that seems to be spreading over the country, are the men who, having possessed themselves of power and wealth through corporations, refuse to 9 submit to just regulation and control. Let me ask you, my railroad friends, not to balk, not to obstruct, not to be content to find fault; but to join those who intend to be fair in formulating in this matter a specific proposal that will meet the just demands and expectations of the country. Now is your hour; will you not rise to its responsi- bilities? Constitutional Questions Involved. (Reprinted from June and July, 1905, issues of FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM.) FREIGHT asks me to put, in a few words, my view on the constitu- tionality of the railroad rate plan proposed by me. The plan is sim- ple, and its constitutionality can be put in a few words. From the time the occupation of common carriers began a long time before the railroad was known the law of England and America imposed this duty: That the rates to be charged by common carriers should be reasonable and just. It was the common law of England, in this respect, that was transferred bodily to the law of the several Ameri- can States. And it was the same common law, so far as interstate commerce is concerned, that was transferred potentially to the Fed- eral Government, in that provision of the Constitution that em- powers the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce. No lawyer, I think, will deny this. And the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 expressly recognizes and embodies it. It will thus be seen that the Federal Government 'has full power to see to it that, so far as interstate commerce is concerned, the rates to be charged shall be reasonable and just. The single modification of this immemorial law, irrvolved in the plan proposed by me, is, that while at common law, when rates ex- acted were unreasonable and unjust, it was only the shipper who could complain, in the plan proposed it is the Government in loco parens that can intervene as the representative of all the shippers. But this modification is not new. It was clearly recognized in the railway injunction cases. It embodies only a well established func- tion of government. And it was re-enacted, in the Elkins Act, into the form of statutory law. Here then is the constituional power, to my mind clear beyond doubt, for a department or bureau that, as representative of the shippers, will inquire and prosecute; and a court to adjudge and to put its judgment into execution. Indeed, the real question involved in this discussion is not a question of constitutional law. It is a question, rather, of fact, viz., Would the plan proposed furnish machinery efficient and adequate? Would it bring about rates reasonable and just? Would it bring about such rates without delay? Let me answer this question by a simple illustration: Suppose a given rate between Chicago and New York be deemed by the de- 10 partment unreasonable and unjust; suppose that, on complaint of the Government, this rate is adjudged by the court to be unreason- able and unjust what assurance would we have, under the plan proposed, that a rate reasonable and just would be substituted? The answer seems plain. To determine that a rate is unreasonable and unjust the court must first determine what rate would be reasonable and just. True, the reasonableness and justness of rates is a somewhat variable quan- tity, depending upon circumstance. But to determine whether a departure from the reasonable rate named by the court in its judgment is justifiable or not would not be a very difficult question; and, in the absence of justification, the departure could be so penalised that no carrier would like to fly in its face; and the power that gives to the Government the right to forbid a rate that is unreasonable and unjust includes the right to so penalize the charging of an unjust and unreasonable rate, especially after knowledge has been judicially brought home to the carrier what rate, under existing circumstances, is just and reasonable. With the right man at the head of the department and the right judges in the court, there need be no fear, I think, on the part of shippers that the plan will be inefficient, and no fear on the part of the carriers that it will work injustice. And that is all that either party in this discussion has the right to expect. MAY 24, 1905. PETER S. GROSSCUP. There is so much confused thinking on what is called, in this matter of rate making, the "legislative function" and what is called the "judicial function" that perhaps a plain statement of the situa- tion, without argument, may not be out of place. To the legislature that is, to Congress, in the matter of inter- state commerce, and to the State assemblies, in State commerce has been committed the power to determine rates, subject, of course, to the limitation that the railroads are not thereby deprived of their property without due process of law. This power may be exercised by the legislature either specifically, by the fixing of specific rates, or generally, by providing, as the common law now provides, that no rate shall be unreasonable. When the legislature chooses to fix the rate specifically, the function of the court is confined to the deter- mination of whether the rate so fixed is, in effect, confiscatory. But when the legislature chooses to exercise its power generally, as that rates shall not be unreasonable, the function of the court is to deter- mine whether the specific rate fixed by the carrier is in fact within this legislative mandate; for only in this way could an individual obtain his right under law, and to determine individual rights under law is always a judicial function. There is no decision of the Supreme Court that, reasonably read, controverts or tends to controvert this view of the law. True, there 11 are decisions that the legislature has the power to fix rates. That I have already stated. True, there are decisions that when the rates are thus specifically fixed by the legislature as, for instance, in the Dakota case, 3 cents per mile for passengers the function of the court is confined to determining whether the mandatory fixing of such rate would be the taking of property without due process of law. That, too, I have already stated. But there is no case that holds that, where the legislative mandate respecting rates is confined simply to the command that the rates shall be reasonable, the courts are with- out power, in administering the rights of individuals under the law, to determine what rate is reasonable and what rate is not reason- able. Indeed, to so hold would be, practically, to say to the shipper, or the Government, acting in loco parens for the shipper, that though under the law the shipper had a right to a reasonable rate, there ivas no power in the courts to secure to him such right. That plainly would be an absurdity. Let the distinction not be lost sight of. The legislature estab- lishes rights. The courts enforce them. When the legislature estab- lishes a right so specifically that no occasion arises for the court, by external inquiry, to determine what the legislature meant, no such inquiry will be instituted. But when the right established is so gen- eral that, except through external inquiry, the court would be in ignorance of what was the specific right established, as applied to the case in hand, the inquiry will be instituted. And an inquiry thus in- stituted, though executing the legislative will, is the exercise of a judicial function. P. S. GROSSCUP. CHICAGO, June 27, 1905. PRESIDENT HADLEY FAVORS SPECIAL COURT. (From the paper written by Arthur T. Hartley, of Yale, and copyrighted, 1905, by the Boston Evening Transcript.) While Congress could undoubtedly increase the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission if it wanted to, and that without any serious financial damage to the railroads, it is improbable that such action would result in much good to the public. The power to make rates for the traffic of the United States is too vast a thing to be handled by the machinery of the Interstate Com- merce Commission, even if the power and expense of that machinery were considerably increased. The initiation of a successful rate policy must come from the owner, not from somebody else who tries to con- trol the action of the owner. Governments have been sometimes suc- cessful in their rate making when they operated their roads; but I do not know a single instance of really successful rate making by a Gov- ernment which attempted to control roads that somebody else operated. 12 If we put our rate making power into the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission we might possibly have a more even schedule than we have at present. But if the schedules were adhered to it would unquestionably mean much higher rates and smaller vol- ume of traffic than we now enjoy; and if it were not adhered to, the evils of the discriminations which all men who have studied the sub- ject regard as the most serious evil connected with railroad rates would tend not to diminish but to increase. The appointment of a special railroad court seems a more prom- ising means of dealing with our difficulties than an increase of the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. There is enough that is distinctive in railroad cases and the precedents connected with them to warrant the creation of a body of judges whose learning is to be specially devoted to this branch of the law. I believe that the attempt to confine the activity of this court to cases already decided by the Interstate Commerce Commission would prove futile and vexatious. What is the use, say the opponents of such a court, of arranging to have every question decided twice? Why not have the thing done all at once, instead of introducing an additional piece of machinery which is expensive in its character and uncertain in its workings? The objection to having two different bodies to do the same work twice over is real and sound. Given a body of men who are neither judges nor technical experts, but who assume to perform the func- tions which belong both to judges and technical experts, you are practically certain to find a great many of their decisions reversed. The question may be asked whether any court, however well trained its members, could make the rules which we need for the regulation of interstate traffic in the United States. It would doubt- less have authority to declare certain rates unreasonable; but could it indicate clearly how much rates would have to be reduced in order to be reasonable? Could it make negative rules which would result in positive reforms? We might admit that these reforms would not come quite so fast as radical reformers desire; but I believe they would come more surely and permanently in this way than in any other. A negative rule which will be upheld and obeyed is a good deal better basis of practical reform than a positive rule whose au- thority is uncertain. The history of equity jurisdiction in its various branches shows that when the higher courts of any country have really made up their mind to get certain things done they get them done; and that the attempt to secure the same result faster by means of short cuts creates so much confusion and uncertainty as to delay the very con- summation which it has been intended to hasten. The Interstate Commerce Commission represents just such a short cut; and I con- fess that I see no indication that it has proved or is going to prove 13 \ more successful than most other experiments of the same sort. Its members wish to have part of the duties of a traffic manager and part of the authority of a Federal judge, without necessarily having the previous experience which goes with the successful exercise of either function. From such antecedent conditions I do not see how we can expect successful consequences. The need of some expert authority which shall represent the court, as distinct from either of the contending parties, becomes verjr great. Such a technical commission should, I think, include three men who were trained in the traffic department of the railroad ser- vice, one in the operating department and one in the financial de- partment. It would not be necessary or even desirable to include a representative of the shippers, or a representative of the legal de- partment of railroads. The presence of such men on the commission would simply obscure the purpose for which it was intended the 4 purpose of ascertaining facts needed by the court as a basis for its decision. The court itself would be competent to furnish the justice and the law. GROSSCUP PLAN INDORSED. A large number of indorsements of Judge Grosscup's plan have been received by FREIGHT since May i. Among them was one from J. S. George, of Hutchinson, Kan., president of the Kansas Federa- tion of Commercial Interests. He wrote: Having carefully read Judge Grosscup's plan for the regulation of railroads, I am of the opinion that thus far nothing better has been offered by the many writers and speakers on the subject, and it would probably be as well to try the experiment of railroad regulation under this plan as any other. What our shippers and producers most need is a "short cut" to justice that Will prevent the interminable delays that the railroads heretofore have been able to inter- pose in actions brought against them. I take pleasure as chairman of the Hutchinson Commercial Club in signing the resolutions you so kindly inclose and handing them to you herewith. As president of the Kansas Federation of Commercial Interests, en^podying in ils membership most of the larger shipping interests of this State, I also earnestly indorse the work you are doing. Arthur F. Francis, secretary of the Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress, wrote: I read your argument and also the arguments of Professor Hadley with much interest, and will cheerfully submit the draft of the resolution to the executive committee for action. Your suggestion is along the line of the work of this organization for several years, which has been to secure, if possible, a just, equitable and speedy solution of this question. The commercial interests of the States and Territories west of the Mississippi River represented by this or- ganization are in constant peril so long as this question is unsettled. Milo Ward, secretary of the Commercial Club, of Des Moines, la., wrote: I think your suggestion the be t yet. This matter of freight rates is of so much importance that the best, the most practical and fairest plan should be 14 worked out. If it is not fair and just to the railroads it won't stand, as you sug- gest. For this reason the idea which you advance, namely, that commercial bodies should hold a convention and appoint a committee to confer with the committee appointed by the railroads and agree upon the Grosscup plan, or a better one, if it is advanced, seems to me should be followed. Thank you for all the information given us, and \ve assure you of our interest. We are pleased to be furnished with a copy of your views upon this impor- tant question of the day. Inasmuch as you have made a careful study of the mat- ter your opinion constitutes a valuable contribution to the information which \ve have accumulated. W. S. Tilton, secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of El Paso, Tex., in forwarding the resolutions adopted by the organization, wrote as follows: Our transportation committee is in entire accord with the proposition sought to be accomplished by continued and persistent agitation of this question and embodied in this resolution. The present method of obtaining relief against unjust and unequal rates of transportation is entirely inadequate and in many cases futile. The following came from D. H. Merriam, secretary of the Fitch- burg Merchants' Association, of Fitchburg, Mass.: The plan which Judge Grosscup has suggested seemed to meet the approval of our members and the resolutions were unanimously adopted at the last meeting. From J. Frank Drake, secretary Springfield Board of Trade, Springfield, Mass.: The Board of Trade considered this question (increased supervision of the railroads by the Government) a year ago, and at that time did not feel that it could give its unqualified indorsement to any bill that was then before Con- gress. Personally, the plan outlined by Judge Grosscup seems to be a very practi- cal one, and it will give me great pleasure to bring it to the attention of the board of directors at their next regular meeting. From John J. Telford, secretary of the Louisville Board of Trade: I have your favor on the subject of Judge Grosscup's method of settling the transportation problem. If this could be done legally I believe it would settle ihe v*'bole question, and I do not think it would be objectionable to the railway companies. I have read your articles in the June issue with a great deal of interest, and would like to compliment you on the paper you are getting out just now. In returning the resolutions, signed, G. Wilson Jones, secretary of the Retail Lumber Dealers' Association of the State of New York, wrote : We are greatly interested in this matter and hope the efforts may be success- ful. FYom Carr W. Taylor, attorney for the Kansas Board of Railroad Commissioners : I most heartily indorse the Judge Grosscup plan. George F. Mead, president of the National League of Commis- sion Merchants, wrote: ''Your measure to me seems a good one, but wherein does it reach and remedy the private car line evil, from which the members of our association suffer so severely?" [This was answered editorially in the May issue of FREIGHT.] 15 In acknowledging the receipt of FREIGHT'S circular letter of April 22, calling attention to the Grosscup plan, some of the secretaries of commercial organizations said that the subject would be brought up for discussion at the annual meetings in the fall. A few referred to the fact that their associations had supported the Quarles-Cooper Bill, so considered it unwise to indorse any plan except one on simi- lar lines. It is interesting to note that two of the largest commer- cial organizations in the country, the National Manufacturers' Asso- ciation and the Millers' National Federation, which last year adopted resolutions favoring the proposed increase in the powers of the In- terstate Commerce Commission, this year ignored the subject, their resolutions simply dealing with the question of rebates and dis- crimination. A large number of organizations throughout the coun- try have already adopted resolutions indorsing the Grosscup plan. Indorsed by Representative Concerns and Individuals. About the middle of June, to ascertain the sentiment of shippers generally, FREIGHT began sending out the following form of indorse- ment to its subscribers, to be signed by the recipient in case the plan met his approval: We. the undersigned merchants, jobbers, manufacturers and shippers of the State of hereby indorse the following plan put forth by Judge Peter S. Grosscup, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, for settling the trans- portation problem and for the speedy remedying of all traffic abuses : Create a transportation department of the Government; this new department to have the sole duty of investigating and prosecuting all complaints of discrimination, un- just rates and unfair practices of every description by the railroads; it to be the duty of this department to present them at once to a special court of transpor- tation, the judges of which should be appointed for life and be required to de- vote their entire time to railroad cases; the judges to sit together in Washing- ton and separately throughout the country, so that complaints would be re- ceived and acted upon with the least possible delay ; the only appeal from this court to lie to the Supreme Court of the United States, and then solely on questions of law. This plan would give to shippers a quick apprenension by a competent de- partment of any given wrong and a speedy adjudication and rectification of it by an impartial and competent tribunal. Out of the great mass of correspondence which followed, the fol- lowing replies, which arrived up to July 8, are selected as indicating the wide interest felt in the subject by prominent commercial houses: We return herewith the memorandum inclosed with your circular letter, properly signed. If you will please send me about 500 of the slips relative to establishing the transportation department of the Government I will be glad to have them sent, similar to yours, to all the members of the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association and the Paint Grinders' Association of the United States. HEATH & MILLIGAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Chicago, 111. Ernest T. Trigg, General Manager. We are in receipt of your letter, inclosing indorsement, which we herewith return to you, properly signed. S. E. WORMS & Co., Ltd. New Orleans, La. 16 \Ye read Judge Grosscup's article in the June issue of your publication and will say that we are in hearty accord with this movement, and we inclose here- with the indorsement properly signed by us. as you requested. If there is any- thing that we can do to further the good cause we would be very glad to do so. There are a great many irregularities in the freight business that we feel should be corrected. THE ADVANCE LUMBER COMPANY, Cleveland. Ohio. By E. B. Smith. Your plan of creating a transportation department of the Government and referring to it all complaints of discrimination, freight rates, etc., by railroads, has our hearty approval and I have signed the blank' and inclose the same. Cleveland, Ohio. F. F. PRENTICE, President of the Cleveland Twist Drill Company. We have your esteemed favor, inclosing article by Judge Grosscup, and we beg to return same herewith (signed) and wish to say that we most heartily in- dorse the same. SIMONDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Chicago, 111. W. L. Taylor, Traffic Manager. In reply to your letter would say we are heartily in favor of Judge Gross- cup's proposition, and return herewith indorsement with our signature, as re- quested. Hope that you will meet with success in your undertaking. THE CLEVELAND HARDWARE COMPANY, Cleveland, Ohio. W. F. Gibbons, Sales Manager. Replying to your favor, we quite agree with you in regard to the proposition for the settlement of the transportation problem and believe you are on the right path. We inclose herewith slip signed and trust it may be the means of a solution of this kind, which woulS undoubtedly be of great value to all concerns who are shippers of freight. Thank you for the kindly interest manifested in the matter and trust it may be successful. THE ALDEN RUBBER COMPANY. Barberton. Ohio. Your favor is received, and in compliance with your request we herewith re- turn the petition duly signed. We believe that Judge Grosscup's idea is a good one and the sooner this matter is put into shape, whereby the shipper can get relief and restitution, the better it will be for the shipper. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. THE GLOBE OIL COMPANY, Cleveland. Ohio. C. D. Chamberlain, Secretary. We have your favor. We return you the inclosure duly signed. It would be a great benefit to all shippers if this could be put through. THE SOUTHWESTERN LUMBER & Box COMPANY, New Orleans, La. Per W. Scott. In reply to your favor we inclose blank properly filled out. We believe this is along the right lines and ultimately will have its effect on the action of the railroad companies favorable to the shipper. E. C. ATKINS & Co, Indianapolis, Ind. H. C. Atkins, President. Inclosed please find signed indorsement of the transportation problem as set forth by Judge Peter S. Grosscup. We trust that this plan will prove very suc- cessful in the solution of the many difficulties relative to transportation. REGAL SHOE COMPANY, Inc.. I-.ast Whitman. Mass. Per E. P. Bliss. Treasurer. 17 In compliance with your favor, we are very glad to have an opportunity of signing and returning the inclosed petition to you. THE FOREST CITY PAINT" & VARNISH COMPANY, Cleveland, Ohio. W. W. Bowler, President. Inclosed find our petition. We most heartily indorse it. In fact, the writer in any possible \vay will be glad to co-operate with you. J. H. NEUSTADT COMPANY, St. Lcuis, Mo. Per J. H. Neustadt. Agreeable with your favor, we are glad to herewith inclose our indorsement to the subject of which you speak. THE OVERMAN & SCHRADER CORDAGE COMPANY. Covington, Ky. In response to your circular letter, we sign and return the Grosscup circular herewith. We take this opportunity of expressing our special appreciation of the article in your May issue entitled "Lumber Overcharges Hard to Col- lect." This article should be put in the hands of every lumber shipper in the countiy. THE NICOLA, STONE & MYERS COMPANY, Cle\ eland, Ohio. A. L. Stone, Secretary. Acknowledging receipt of your favor, we beg to advise that we heartily in- dorse the plan, which we have read carefully, as set forth by Judge Peter S. Grosscup, in connection with tle transportation problem. We have not only read Judge Grosscup's suggestion, but we have followed other writers upon this subject, and the plan that he advances appears to us to be desirable. Trusting that through your good efforts and those of others interested in this subject an adjustment tray be reached which will be satisfactory to ship- pers as well as to the transportation companies. THE HASEROT CANNERIES COMPANY, S. F. Haserot, President. P. S. The writer, who is a member of the Cleveland Chamber of Com- merce Freight Committee, and who is also chairman of the Committee on Freight, Express and Telegraph Matters of the National Association of Pack- ers of Pure Canned Foods, will, when occasion offers, present the subject to those bodies. Cleveland, Ohio. The writer is personally acquainted with Judge Grosscup, of Chicago, and has great respect for his ideas on transportation matters. He is very glad in- deed to sign the indorsement you ask for, and the same is returned herewith. THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio. N. C. Kingsbury. In answer to your valued favor, received during the writer's absence, before leaving for my Pacific Coast trip, I had read over your June issue and the ar- ticle referred to. We inclose herewith your form, signed as you request. THE PLOM'O SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Cleveland, Ohio. S. W. Whitmore, President and General Manager. Referring to the inclosed (the indorsement of the Grosscup plan), which I have signed, believing that it covers the ground more fully than any other plan, will say that while we are not antagonistic to the railroads we should have some means of settling just propositions and not to be held up as we are upon one pretense or another. R. L. SPENCER, Texarkana. Ark. Manager Texarkana Freight Bureau. 18 Inclosed please fincl our indorsement of plan put forth by Judge Peter . Grosscup with reference to a settlement of the transportation problem. New York. D. AUERBACH & SONS. We duly received your letter, inclosing memorandum of plan for settling transportation problem. We are returning same herewith, as we believe this would be the proper solution of the matter. THE NATIONAL SCREW & TACK COMPANY, Cleveland, Ohio. C. W. Brainerd, Secretary. In answer to your favor you will please find inclosed herewith our indorse- ment of your plai* for settling transportation problems. After carefuj consid- eration it seems to us that Judge Grosscup's plan is the real solution of the problem. With best wishes for its success, GEORGE E. KEITH COMPANY, Campello, Mass. Transportation Department. The following list is representative of many different lines of trade, and is composed of a small percentage of the firms and indi- viduals who indorsed the Grosscup plan in the three weeks ending July 8: AKRON, OHIO. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, manufacturers soft rubber goods. A. J. Weeks, manufacturer stoneware. C. S. Eddy, traffic manager the B. F. Goodrich Co., rubber manufacturers. Swinehart Clincher Tire & Rubber Company, rubber manufacturers. The McNeil Boiler Company, manufacturers boilers, tanks, etc. ATLANTA, GA. Gholstin-Cunningham Spring Bed Company, manufacturers of spring beds, etc. BARBERTON, OHIO. The Alden Rubber Company ; rubber manufacturers, COLUMBUS, OHIO. The Jeffrey Manufacturing Company. PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. H. J. Grimes, grain. PORT HURON, MICH. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Company, manufacturers engines, separators and farm implements. BRUSHY, MISS. The D. C. Bacon Company, manufacturers and shippers yellow pine lumber. BOSTON, MASS. New England Confectionery Company. The George James Company, sole leather and cut soles. Tremont & Suffolk Mills, Lowell, Mass., cotton manufacturing. Godfrey L. Cabot, carbon black maker; gas and oil producer. BROCKTON, MASS. George E. Keith Company, shoe manufacturers. BROOKLYN, N. Y. E. W. Bliss Company, builders of machinery. BUFFALO, N. Y. H. G. Anderson & Co., grain. 19 CHICAGO, ILL. Bradner Smith & Co., paper makers and jobbers. Simonds Manufacturing Company, manufacturers. Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company, paint and color makers. American Matting Importing Company, Ltd. Edward G. Davies, commission merchant. The Acme White Lead & Color Works, paint and color manufacturers. CINCINNATI, OHIO. The H. Kruse Show Case Company, show case manufacturers. Merkel Brothers, plumbers', steam and gas supplies. Bender, Streiberg & Co., fruit and produce commission merchants. John Staun & Co., leaf tobacco. The Henderson Lithographing Company, lithographing. Beech Hill Distilling Company, 'wholesale liquors. The Hartwell Furniture Company, furniture. J. L. Crosley, wholesale fruits. The Charles Barnes Company, builders of machinery. The Alfred Vogeler Drug Company, wholesale drugs. The Globe- Wernicke Company. The Cincinnati Grain Company, receivers and shippers of grain. Mayer, Scheuer, Offner & Co., manufacturers of clothing. I. N. Price & Co., wholesale fruits and produce. CLEVELAND, OHIO. Zone Oil Company, manufacturers lubricating oils and paints. The Kirk-Latty Manufacturing Company, manufacturers bolts, nuts, etc. The Loew Supply & Manufacturing Company, manufacturing. Weideman Fries Company, jobbers of liquors. The National Refining Company, oil. The Nicola, Stone & Myers Company, wholesale lumber. The Forest City Paint & Varnish Company, manufacturers paints and varnished The Lamson & Sessions Company, manufacturers bolts, nuts, etc. Britton T. & S. P. Day, manufa turing brokers and dealers. Cleveland Co-Operative Stove Company, manufacturers stoves and ranges. The Advance Lumber Company. The Bigalow Fruit Company, jobbers fruits and produce. The Acme Machinery Company, manufacturers bolt and nut machinery. The Cleveland Gas & Electric Fixture Company, manufacturers gas and electric fixtures. The Haserot Canneries Company, canners of vegetables and fruits. The North Electric Company. H. E. Higgins, rolling mill and steel works. The Globe Oil Company, manufacturers lubricating oils. The Cleveland Hardware Company, manufacturers of vehicle hardware. Guggenheimer Brothers, wholesale liquors. The Cleveland Builders' Supply Company, manufacturers and dealers in build- ers' supplies. The Cleveland Twist Drill Company, manufacturers of twist drills. Theodore Kundtz, sewing machine cabinet manufacturing. The Osborn Manufacturing Company, brushes, brooms and foundry supplies. The Newburgh Brick & Clay Co., manufacturers of brick and slate products. The Central Lumber Company, wholesale lumber. The National Screw & Tack Company, manufacturers screws and bolts. 20 COVINGTON, KY. The Overman-Schrader Cordage Company, cordage manufacturers. DAYTON, OHIO. National Cash Register Company. DENVER, COL. George J. Kindel, manufacturer of upholstering and bedding. EAST WHITMAN, MASS. Regal Shoe Company, manufacturers shoes. INDIANAPOLIS, IND. E. C. Atkins & Co., saw manufacturers. KANSAS CITY, MO. J. A. Brubaker & Co., wholesale grain and hay. Woolscy & Stahl Hay Company, wholesale and commission hay and grain. LITTLE ROCK, ARK. Dudley E. Jones Company, machinery and supplies. MOBILE, ALA. Weiss-Eichold Liquor Company, wholesale liquor dealers. NEW ORLEANS, LA. The Grant Furniture Company, retail furniture. Leon Frank, wholesale produce. J. L. Beer & Co., general wholesale produce. S. E. Worms & Co., Ltd., wholesale furnishing goods and notions. B. Rosenberg & Sons, shoe dealers and manufacturers. Burkenroad Wilcox Company, Ltd., paper and woodenware. Charles Sugarman, wholesale produce. . William Dunn & Son, lumber. The Southwestern Lumber & Box Company, manufacturing lumber and staves. The Parker-Blake Company, Ltd.. wholesale druggists. Oscar Gartner, lumber exporter. American Matting Importing Company, Ltd. NEW YORK CITY. Hagerty Brothers & Co., glassware. F. O. Pierce Company, paint manufacturers. The Morton B. Smith Company, scrap iron and steel, old metal. Lasher & Lathrop, wholesale paper. D. Auerbach & Sons, confectionery manufacturers. Harrison Granite Company. George A. Swayze, wholesale lumber. Henry D. Hamilton, lawyer. E. Nichols, adjuster. Mills & Gibb, importers and manufacturers of dry goods. E. J. Johnson & Co., roofing slate producers. E. R. Durkee & Co.. wholesale spices, etc. Butler & Kelley Company, manufacturers of fancy cards. West End Manufacturing Company, coal tar products and paper. Standard Table Oil Cloth Company. 21 PHILADELPHIA, PA. G. F. Wood, Bement-Miles Works of the Niles Bement Pond Company, machine tools. Rosskam Gerstley & Co., wholesale liquors. PITTSBURG, PA. Logan-Gregg Hardware Company. Wilson-Snyder Manufacturing Company, pumping machinery. ROCHESTER, N. Y. James Cunningham Sons & Co., carriage builders. Schlegel Manufacturing Company, manufacturers textile goods. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Company, manufacturers of office riling de- vices. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. Goldberg, Bowen & Co., wholesale and retail grocers. ST. LOUIS, MO. J. H. Neustadt Company, parts for automobile builders. Kraushaar Brass Manufacturing Company, brass makers and chandelier manu- facturers. Weinheimer & Opp, leaf and tobacco dealers. Roth-Homeyer Coffee Company, coffees, teas and spices. Lambert Pharmacal Company, manufacturers of listerine, etc. Gerber Fruit Company, wholesale fruit and produce. J. G. Haas Soap Company, manufacturers of soap and sal soda. Columbia Pretzel & Baking Company, bakers. Medart Patent Pulley Company, manufacturers of power transmission machin- ery. E. C. Robinson Lumber Company, retail lumber. J. D. Streett & Co., oils, railroad, mill and mine supplies. Benbow-Brammer Manufacturing Company, manufacturers of washing ma- chines. L. Garvey, president Fruit & Produce Exchange. SYRACUSE, N. Y. Kelsey Heating Company, manufacturers warm air heaters. TOPEKA, KAN. Carr W. Taylor, attorney for Kansas Board of Railroad Commissioners. WATERTOWN, N. Y. Farwell & Rhines, merchant millers. WICHITA, KAN. Boyle Commission Company, car lots fruits and produce. Jett & Wood, wholesale grocers. 22 Recognized Mouthpiece of the Shipping Public The only publication in the country solely devoted to the shipping inter- ests of manufacturers, jobbers and consumers. Its Departments are replete every issue with original special matter by experts, indispensable to every busi- ness man. ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT contains complete digests of all decisions of Federal and State Courts bearing on Interstate and Intrastate Commerce. This alone is worth many times the price of subscription. Digests of all Decisions of the Inter- state Commerce Commission Expert advice on traffic and legal questions free to subscribers. Thousands of the leading firms of the country, already subscribers, attest the great value of FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM Subscription price, $3.00 a year. Sample copy sent on request FREIGHT PUBLISHING CO., Publishers 1 1 6 Nassau St , New York City w n 00 5' n C/i P p 5 S P 00 S r-h ~t jj 3' r> ni rt- 2. >-t G. 00 3 H Q ^^^ p H P i P 5T o P rD Cf 3 P 00 5 rr\ M H 5' 3 P O r-t- o* ^ P 3 rD cr n> CO CL o P 00 CD 00 r-f- 3" rD cL O> 00 nirt of transportatic g 1 ^' *O 3 o' o> 00 H~K portation problem this new departm o> cT 5' P 3 ;, the undersigned PPERS' P o K 3 r-t- >) C 3* O J3 El 3 * 3 0) cr x 00 cr ^5' ^ 00 00 ft" 3" rT 00 00 O s c' CL rD p- J? ft- rD n o 3- P 3 fh C/) m oa 3 P 3 (T> s. sr 00 cr rT p. 3- 5' P rD 00 O t-K 3* o' 2. 6* cr ro ro a s 8 x rT ^ rD cr i C CfQ rD hj "o* cr cr o> -t 00 Sfl c S 1 3D^ & rc> 00 *-J 3- r^ . 3 19 3 S sr 3* 5' S- 0) >-t p 3 ""* O Cj' >-$ CD c sr ^ 3 * 3" o tr~* "i pMBl f\\ O 00 o' 3 P 3 cr o c^ 5' o^ Q o r-t- c *-t ^^^ s. r^ 3 ^r* 3 ^ * r^ P oo 00 k^ ^^ 00 fP cr P 00 *T3 i_i. i-". """ o P ^^^ 3 rD 9. r ~ t ' CTQ (-f- 3 S^ fr r-t- P o> 12 3" O &. ^ "p P. EP ^4 L P ro cr 3 ^ o CO ^0 o* O P- n> C*Q o I-H c- ^A 3 o r- ^ 3* cr r-t- 3" n> P- 3 cr oo rt- cr rD 00 g o 3 3 ct -t o +> C ^ 2 """I ^ o S o r-t- CL oo' o orq P s, n o - rT cr n wQ o M c O p> ci r\ ^^^ P 3 p-t- o r-t- 3" rf 1 3' rT ^ p CO i-f- , . rD ^ s* L - 00 3 r-t S. rB* i-t- O o c ^5 g T ^ p """ P 3 O oo n O 2 *"J 3 rt> g 3 ^ O ^IH 3 3^ "i 1 i- ^ ^ S >- ^r^B 3 n> cn X oo 3 r-f- <-+- g: g ? N^ B s. C O s* in S' |-*t 1 t N4 3 ^ reme 3 1 P r-t- O o n> 1 o M- P. Bt | o w- O O - 5- o S P-* Mi N*N GTQ 3 rp rt- 2. 3 3. g rc H ft- ^ n> p^ . ^i 3 o 3' 3 . 3 r-t- P ^00 * P o> 00 I' P o o ^ p ^ rT H oo 3 r-t- ' 3 n n> c 5. O oo m r-h 3* n> i a rD * * _^ * f-\ }T^ rD fe|H^ P- n> cr r-f c w 3 cr ^5n P* rD O -t- 1 OQ