tion and service as may be made between the carrier and the owner of the cars, with the approval of the commission. The provision in section 1 of the bill to which you refer is simply bringing forward what is now and for many years has been in section 1 of the act to regulate commerce. The Supreme Court decided that under the present law the commission is not empowered to require a carrier to provide itself with cars. The provision to which you refer in section 2 of the Esch bill will, if enacted into law, confer upon the commission power to require a carrier to provide itself with cars, subject to the limitations upon the exercise of that power stated in the bill. It has been suggested in some quarters that private car lines should be made common carriers, or that their equipment, if used on the lines of common carriers, should be available for the use of all shippers. The commission's report in the matter of private cars (50 I. C. C., 652), deals somewhat with this phase of the question, and it is there seen that the commission did not think that such action should be taken. Numerous concerns have provided themselves with cars of special design to fit their needs, and have gone to the expense of purchasing and maintaining those cars for the convenience of having the use of them. In the case cited the commission required the carrier to grant some increased compensation to private car owners, but even under the increased rate and prevailing prices the owners doubtless fail to get more than the actual cost of maintaining the equipment. The difficulties about making these cars available for all shippers are numerous and important. In a time of reasonably ample car supply other shippers would not want them, but in a time of car shortage they would perhaps be willing to use them. The greatest difficulty is that of having the cars used for freight, which would leave them in condition not fit for the use for which they were built. The man who has equipped himself with tank cars for the transportation of vinegar does not want them loaded with crude oil. The expense of cleaning them is great. Tank cars built for certain uses must be equipped with heating coils, through which the contents of the car can be warmed before it can be drawn off. The owners of such cars have, of course, equipped themselves with the necessary steam plants and connections and would be unable to use a car that was not so equipped. The stress and inconvenience of acute periods of so-called car shortage are not underestimated, but it must be remembered that they ontain for comparatively and relatively short periods and that during the greater portion of each year, and frequently for successive years, no such period is experienced. With regard to refrigeator cars, it is appreciated that there are still in use some that are not as satisfactory or effective as the newer cars built on more scientific and modern principles. The older ones are being gradually, and in some instances rapidly retired from use, and so far as we are advised all of the refrigerator cars recently constucted or now being constructed have been and are being built on the plans and specifications devised and proven efficient and desirable by the Department of Agriculture. It would seem to follow. that within a comparatively few years the general character of refrigerator cars will be much better than it is at the present. It is to be remembered, also, that occasionally a shipment requiring a refrigerator car turns up on a road that has little or practically none of that business. Under such circumstances it is doubtful if it would be reasonable to require that carrier to provide itself with refrigerator cars. Cars owned by a car-owning company and rented or leased by the carriers are available for use in different sections of the country, dependent upon the seasonal crops. They are needed in one section of the country at one time of the year for protection of freight by refrigeration and during another portion of the year they are needed and used in another section of the country to protect shipments against cold. This subject is having careful thought and consideration by the commission and also by Members of Congress, who are much interested in the transportation problem, and will not be lost sight of, although it may perhaps not be found wise to fundamentally change the existing rule of law at this time. Respectfully, B. H. MEYER, LETTER SUBMITTED BY HON. EDGAR E. CLARK. Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. ESCH: I have your favor of the 13th instant, inclosing letters addressed to you by Messrs. Lewis H. Haney, of Jacksonville, Fla., and L. B. Boswell, of Quincy, Ill. Both of these gentlemen ask for some interpretation of the provisions of H. R. 4378 and you ask for expression from me relative thereto. Commissioner Meyer received a few days since a letter from Mr. Haney which was very similar to, if not identical with, that addressed to you. Commissioner Meyer consulted with me with reference to the reply to be made to Mr. Haney, and I am inclosing a copy of that reply, which fully expresses my personal views. Mr. Boswell asks for interpretation of the language occurring in lines 18 to 23 on page 21 of the bill and inquires whether it is intended to confer upon the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction of complaints of undue preference or prejudice as between parties or places within one State. In other words, does it confer upon the commission jurisdiction of complaints of undue prefer ence or prejudice wholly intrastate? The answer to this is, of course, "no." The language in question refers only to undue preference or prejudice as between persons or localities in State commerce on the one hand and in interstate commerce or foreign commerce on the other hand, and I do not think there is any probability that it will be misunderstood or misconstrued. I see no reason to assume or fear that if the commission is vested with power to prescribe the minimum rate it will estop the granting of commodity rates. The commission, as well as everybody else conversant with traffic matters, appreciates the necessity for commodity rates. The commission would exercise its power to prescribe the minimum rate only in instances where it was necessary in order to prevent an insurgent carrier from disrupting an adjustment which the commission found to be appropriate and where it might possibly be necessary to prevent a carrier from accepting traffic at less than compensatory rates. I trust that I have answered these questions to your satisfaction. If I have not, please do not hesitate to command me further. I return the letters which you inclosed, and I am, Yours, truly, E. E. CLARK, LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE ST. PAUL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. ST. PAUL, MINN., June 9, 1919. Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. ESCH: I am advised by the National Industrial Traffic League that a rider has been, or will be, attached to the appropriation bill providing for an absolute long-and-short-haul clause to section 4 of the act to regulate commerce. This is, of course, the so-called Poindexter bill. The shippers of this market are unalterably opposed to a rigid long-and-short-haul clause. If such an amendment is passed, it will do vastly more harm than good. It will injure more sections of the country than it will benefit. You are too familiar with this subject. to warrant our taking your time with a lengthy argument. May I suggest, however, that we have had 32 years' experience with the "act to regulate commerce." The Interstate Commerce Commission has heard and adjudicated numerous cases. Every phase of the act in its original and amended form has been before it many times. Its published opinions comprise 52 volumes. It would seem, therefore, that the members of that body could speak with almost absolute authority. We think the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce should profit by the experience of that honorable body. In the original act the long-and-short-haul clause was absolute except as qualified by the words "Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions." For approximately two years after the passage of the "act to regulate commerce," the railroads filed tariffs in conformity with the absolute long-and-short-haul provision, but the result was so detrimental to the railroads and so unsatisfactory to the public that they took advantage of the qualifying clause (dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions), and where warranted by the conditions. filed tariffs in which rates were higher for shorter than for longer hauls. The Federal courts sustained them in this practice. The act as amended in 1910 provided that carriers upon application to the commission may be relieved by the commission from the operation of the fourth section. Congress doubtless felt that authority to relax the rigors of an absolute long-and-short haul clause must be lodged somewhere, if great injury to both the carriers and the public was to be avoided in some cases. They, therefore, took it away from the carriers where it was lodged in the original act, by the words, "Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions," and lodged it in the commission, whose duty it is to protect both the public and the carriers, in these words: "Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission be authorized," etc. It seems to us so fair and reasonable as it now stands that in our opinion no change should be made. With the development of our interior waterways a more or less elastic fourth section will be even more necessary than heretofore. The Interstate Commerce Commission is trusted, must be trusted, in hearing and deciding most important rate cases affecting vitally both the carriers, the communities they serve, and the individuals. Why should it not be trusted equally in deciding fourth section cases? We hope you will do all in your power to defeat the proposed rider. Yours, very truly, ST. PAUL ASSOCIATION, Hon. JOHN J. Esch, ST. PAUL, MINN., October 25, 1919. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. ESCH: You will be interested in knowing about the experiment now under way upon the upper Mississippi River. You, of course, are familiar with the fleet of barges and tow boats being built for use upon the upper Mississippi River. The barges are 301 feet long and 48 feet wide and 8 feet deep. Six of them are being built at Stillwater, Minn.; six at Dubuque, Iowa; and six at Pittsburgh. Several of the barges have been completed; others are nearing completion. One of the Stillwater barges has been completed and the second one was launched a week ago to-day, October 18, and will probably be completed within a week. The United States engineers in charge of the designing and construction of these barges thought they would like to experiment with them a little during the low-water season, inevitable in the upper Mississippi at this season of the year. They, therefore, sent a dredge boat, the II. S. Taber, up the river from New Orleans, which brought one of the completed barges from Dubuque to St. Paul and then procured the one that was completed at Stillwater. Mr. E. F. Goltra, of St. Louis, furnished a cargo of iron ore, which was loaded within the past few days, and yesterday the fleet started down river. The cargo consisted of approximately 1,300 tons of iron ore. One barge contained actually 650 tons and the other slightly less, or about 620 tons. With their load they were drawing just 3 feet of water. The ore was brought to this city from the Mahoning mine on the Mesaba Range in 25 cars. The original plan was to handle 3 barges instead of 2 and this plan would have been carried out had the third barge been ready. Had they had the third barge the tow could have been handled more advantageously and the entire cargo would then have consisted of about 1,900 tons or 37 carloads. I accompanied the fleet down river nearly to Hastings, and it had no difficulty whatever although the water is very low; in fact, the stage of the water has only been lowered once or twice during the last 25 years. I apprehend, judging from what I saw while with the fleet, that it will go through to St. Louis without interruption or delay. You understand, of course, that the four towboats being built for this fleet, and which will be as adaptable to the upper river as are the new barges, are not yet ready and the experiment is being made with a lower-river dredge boat instead of with a towboat. The dredge boat is, of course, not at all efficient as a towboat, nor is it well adapted to the shallow draft of the upper Mississippi River. If these barges can be taken through to St. Louis under present conditions without difficulty, the towboats now under construction ought to handle from four to six barges equally satisfactorily under precisely the same conditions. The new barges are rated as follows: As stated above, the two barges went out of here yesterday with approximately 650 tons each, drawing about 3 feet of water. They were handled beautifully, but a third barge would have been decidedly advantageous, and of course would have added 650 tons to the cargo. I hope to have some good photographs of the fleet to send you later. I provided the photographer, but it was a dull, rainy day and he may not have gotten very satisfactory results. If he did not, I am planning to take him down the river by train where he can intercept the fleet and try it over again. With assurances of my personal regards, I am, Yours, very truly, Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, ST. PAUL, MINN., October 31, 1919. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. ESCH: I am just in receipt of your letter of the 28th in re the experimental trip of the dredge boat Taber and two of the new steel barges now under way. Mr. Du Shane, the Government engineer in charge of this division of the river, has just telephoned me that the fleet passed La |