diction of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to its rates, rules, and practices) to contract for parcel lots or full cargoes of grain or other bulk commodities, meeting the competiton of other vessels from day to day, without being hampered by any requirement as to filing of rates or to secure permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission to change its rates in order to get its share of the bulk freight offering for shipment via lake. I trust that this proviso will meet with your approval and that it will be made a part of the bill. Yours, very truly, J. S. BROWN, Manager, Transportation Department. LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF SHIPPERS. Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, NEW YORK CITY, September 26, 1919. Chairman House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: An injustice to the shipping public has resulted from that part of the Cummins amendment of March 4, 1915, to the act to regulate commerce, reading: It shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to provide by rule for a shorter period for the institution of suits than two years. The two-year limit for suit has been incorporated in the carriers' bill of lading, filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and made a tariff regulation from which the carriers may not lawfully depart. If the investigation of a claim for loss or damage to freight is not completed within two years and one day from date of delivery, and suit has not been brought, the carriers hold that it has been outlawed. As claims must be presented promptly, or be outlawed under the bill of lading contract, we would propose that if claims are not adjusted within 90 days, that carriers should be required to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent from date of claim, and further, that the two-year limit for suit should apply from date claim is rejected in writing. If desirable, the undersigned will submit to you or your com mittee, either in writing or in person, facts showing long delayed investigation of admitted losses, which have been outlawed and rejected, because suits have not been instituted. Shippers are now forced to file many suits to stop the running of the time limit against claims. For your convenience we attach the text of the Cummins amendment, with the suggested changes to cover the two foregoing points. We are bringing this to your attention at this time in view of the thorough investigation that is now being made of these matters. There is a complaint before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in which the National Industrial Traffic League and the Merchants' Association of New York have intervened, dealing with the 2-year limit for suit, but as we see it, this is not a matter for the commission but one for Congress to adjust. Respectfully submitted. C. L. HILLEARY (Chairman), Traffic Manager, J. L. CARLING, Traffic Manager, R. G. Cook, Mgr. Ry. Traf. Dept., C. E. CRANE, Traffic Manager, The STANDARD TEXTILE PRODUCTS CO. C. C. FURGASON, Traffic Manager, GEO. F. HICHBORN, Gen'l Traffic Manager. J. A. HOFFMAN, Traffic Manager, AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. R. J. MENZIES, Traffic Manager, P. M. RIPLEY, Traffic Manager, AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. LEWIS WALKE, Traffic Manager, ALLAN WALLACE, Gen'l Traffic Manager, J. S. WOOD, Vice President, MEXICAN PETROLEUM Co. (Ltd.). TEXT OF THE CUMMINS ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915 (PUBLIC NO. 325, 63D CONGRESS, S. 4522), WITH PROPOSED AMENDING CLAUSES, WHICH ARE UNDERSCORED. Any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company subject to the provisions of this act receiving property for transportation from a point in one State or Territory or the District of Columbia to a point in another State, Territory, District of Columbia, or from any point in the United States to a point in an adjacent foreign country shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass within the United States or within an adjacent foreign country when transported on a through bill of lading, with interest on the amount of such loss, damage, or injury at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date when the claim therefor is filed to the date when such claim is allowed or recovered unless such claim shall be adjusted within ninety days after the same is filed, and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed; and any such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company so receiving property for transportation from a point in one State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to a point in another State or Territory, or from a point in a State or Territory to a point in the District of Columbia, or from any point in the United States to a point in an adjacent foreign country, or for transportation wholly within a Territory shall be liable to the lawful holder of said receipt or bill of lading or to any party entitled to recover thereon, whether such receipt or bill of lading has been issued or not, for the full actual loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass within the United States or within an adjacent foreign country when transported on a through bill of lading, with interest on the amount of such loss, damage, or injury at the rate of siz per centum per annum from the date when the claim therefor is filed to the date when such claim is allowed or recovered unless such claim shall be adjusted within ninety days after the same is filed, notwithstanding any limitation of liability or limitation of the amount of recovery or representation or agreement as to value in any such receipt or bill of lading, or in any contract, rule, regulation, or in any tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission; and any such limitations, without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is hereby declared to be unlawful and void: Provided, however, That the provisions hereof respecting liability for full actual loss, damage, or injury, notwithstanding any limitation of liability or recovery or representation or agreement or release as to value, and declaring any such limitation to be unlawful and void, shall not apply, first, to baggage carried on passenger trains or boats, or trains or boats carrying passengers; second, to property, except ordinary live stock, received for transportation concerning which the carrier shall have been or shall hereafter be expressly authorized or required by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish and maintain rates dependent upon the value declared in writing by the shipper or agreed upon in writing as the released value of the property, in which case such declaration or agreement shall have no other effect than to limit liaibilty and recovery to an amount not exceeding the value so declared or released, with interest as aforesaid, and shall not, so far as relates to values, be held to be a violation of section ten of this act to regulate commerce, as amended; and any tariff schedule which may be filed with the Commission pursuant to such order shall contain specific reference thereto and may establish rates varying with the value so declared or agreed upon; and the Commission is hereby empow ered to make such order in cases where rates dependent upon and varying with declared or agreed values would, in its opinion, be just and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transportation. The term "ordinary live stock" shall include all cattle, swine, sheep, goats, horses, and mules, except such as are chiefly valuable for breeding, racing, show purposes. or other special uses; Provided further, That nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under the existing laws; Provided further, That it shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to provide by rule, contract, regulation. or otherwise, a shorter period for giving notice of claims than ninety days and for the filing of claims for a shorter period than four months, and for the institution of suits than two years after the claim is rejected in writing by such common carrier: Provided, however, That if the loss, damage, or injury complained of was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery. LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION. Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, WASHINGTON, D. C., September 29, 1919. Chairman Interstate Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Since presenting to your committee the case of the shortline railroads our attention has been called to that provision of your bill relating to the joint use of terminals incorporated in section 4 of page 12, beginning with line 20 of the committee print; also that provision of the Cummins bill relating to the same subject, which may be found in article (b) of section 11, beginning with line 8 of page 19. The joint use of terminals is a matter of vital concern especially to the short-line railroads. It is not only a financial impossibility for the short and weaker lines to acquire terminal facilities in large commercial centers, but would be an economic waste if they had the funds to do so. It is feared by us that the purpose of both committees of Congress may be defeated unless you make a change in the wording of your bill as well as that of the Cummins bill. The latter bill is somewhat broader in its terms than the Esch bill, in that it authorizes the transportation board to require the use of "terminal or other facilities," whereas your bill uses the expression "terminals," omitting the words "or other facilities." The question which arises is whether or not the terms used would be construed by the commission or any court as authorizing the commission or the transportation board to require the necessary use of main tracks of owning lines to enable the tenant line to reach such terminals and terminal facilities. It would be futile to give the power to authorize the use of the terminals of one carrier by another if the transportation board or the commission does not likewise have power to authorize the use of track or tracks leading into such terminals but which are actually outside of the limits thereof. In every large city the joint use of terminals and facilities could probably be used with a saving to the public and carrier, but I can not recall any city where terminals could be approached or utilized without using the tracks for some distance outside the limits of such terminals. To illustrate: The B. & O. is using the Pennsylvania Station in New York. In order to reach this station the B. & O. must use tracks of the Pennsylvania for some distance before reaching the yard limits. Unless a tenant road could connect with and use tracks leading into the terminals a law permitting such use would be of little or no value. In order to make this provision completely effective I respectfully suggest for your consideration the following amendment: After the word "carrier" on line 21, page 12, committee print, insert the following: " including main-line track or tracks for a reasonable distance outside of such terminals." It might be thought best to place a limitation as to the amount of track which might be required to be jointly used. If so, it would not be difficult to reach a conclusion as to the number of miles that might be sufficient to cover any case likely to arise. The importance of this provision to the short and weak lines, as well as to the public, viewed from the standpoint of economy as well as comfort, is my apology for making this suggestion to your committee. Yours, most respectfully, BEN. B. CAIN, Assistant to President. LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE RUBBER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. NEW YORK, September 30, 1919. Subject: Rates on differential basis via water and rail routes. Chairman Committee on Interstate Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a recent meeting of the traffic committee of the Rubber Association of America (Inc.), representing between three and four hundred manufacturers of rubber goods and dealers in raw materials connected with the rubber industry, consideration was given to the question of differential rail-and-water and water-and-rail routes. As you are aware, prior to the Government assuming control of the rail carriers and the most important water carriers' joint waterand-rail and rail-and-water routes on differentials under all-rail rates were effective between points in trunk-line and New England territo ries and Central Freight Association territory, but upon the assump tion of Federal control rates via differential routes were placed on the all-rail basis at the instance of the Director General of Railroads and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Since the close of the war the Director General has undertaken to restore in part the differential rates via routes formerly prevailing. but this represents but a small part of the routes formerly enjoying differential rates, and we desire to call your attention to a few of the instances referred to, namely, rates from New England points to Akron, Ohio, and other C. F. A. points via water and rail; rates via rail, lake and rail from trunk-line and New England territories to points in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois via rail to Buffalo, lake to Cleveland and Detroit, thence rail to destination (these routes are still open for traffic, but on the all-rail basis), routes from St. Louis and other C. F. A. points via rail and water to trunk-line, Atlantic seaboard, and New England territories. The desirability of these routes and the principles underlying the establishment of differential rates via water-and-rail routes requires no amplification at this time, as they have been fixed by long practices. We have, therefore, been directed by the traffic committee of this association to express its views as to the desirability of restoration of water-and-rail and rail-and-water differential rates and to place the matter before you with the thought that in the consideration of various proposals for the restoration of the carriers to private control now before the Congress that if possible there be incorporated in the final bill a provision placing upon the carriers the obligation to restore water-and-rail differential rates to the same extent as prevailed prior to Federal control. Very truly, yours, A. L. VILES, General Manager. LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PACIFIC TRADING CORPORATION. NEW YORK, October 2, 1919. Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In connection with your committee hearing bearing on the consideration of the Esch-Pomerene railroad bill, we desire to |