APRIL 1, 1948.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. REEVES, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1235) The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1235) for the relief of Merchants Motor Freight, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The facts will be found fully set forth in Senate Report No. 726, Eightieth Congress, first session, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report. Your committee concur in the recommendation of the Senate. [S. Rept. No. 726, 80th Cong., 1st sess.] The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay $728.98 to Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., of St. Paul, Minn., in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States for expenses incurred in transporting certain heavy machinery for a war contractor, at the insistence of a United States Navy officer acting in his official capacity. STATEMENT Attached hereto and made a part of this report are a series of letters and affidavits which set forth in detail the facts concerning this case. It is the opinion of your committee that this company would not have proceeded to move this equipment except on demand of naval officers. While the Navy officer in charge denies that he issued the order in question, the committee is satisfied that the protest made by the Merchants Motor Freight Co. against using their equipment for moving this heavy machinery is sufficient to indicate that the final action must have been taken against the freight company's judgment and wishes. Also attached hereto are letters received from the Attorney General and the Navy Department, in connection with this bill. MERCHANTS MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: Attached hereto you will find a file of material explaining the facts behind the bill, S. 1235, which was introduced by Senator Ball of Minnesota and referred to the Judiciary Committee of which you are a member. This bill, S. 1235, proposes to reimburse us for damages sustained as the result of differences with the United States Navy during the war. We recommend the bill to your attention and respectfully ask for your support in getting the measure passed. Very truly yours, MERCHANTS MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., EXPLANATORY RÉSUMÉ OF CLAIM We have a problem on which we feel very pointedly that the Navy Department has done us a wrong-a wrong that should be made right. It is our purpose here to give you all the information we can regarding the incident out of which this wrong arose. After consideration of those facts, we ask you to help us make things right. In April 1943 we received inquiries from a concern in Anoka, Minn. about moving some heavy machinery out of St. Louis. Our Traffic Department in St. Paul told the party who called to have shipper in St. Louis contact our terminal there. This was done for one specific purpose, i. e., to enable our representatives in St. Louis to examine the freight so they might, on the basis of physical facts, determine whether or not such heavy machinery could properly move on standard equipment. Some items of this kind, because of their concentrated weight, cannot be properly and safely moved on standard equipment in common use among regular route carriers such as ourselves. In June 1943 we were requested to move this heavy machinery. It was very definitely war material so we were disposed to do all we could to facilitate the movement of the machine in spite of the fact that we are not heavy machinery moving specialists in any sense. On the first call it was found that the machine was extremely heavy and that it was not available at a spot accessible to trucks. Thereafter we concluded, on basis of available information, that this heavy machine could not properly and safely be handled by us, and that any attempt so to do could and would only result in damage to our equipment. The reason for this conclusion was the highly concentrated weight of the machine. When shipper was so advised, we were contacted by a representative of the Navy, one Lt. Comdr. F. D. Shaw. We advised Commander Shaw that we could not handle this machine because, in our judgment, we could not do so without damage to our trailers. We told the same thing to a representative of the shipper. Commander Shaw insisted we had to handle. In response to his orders, we sent a trailer over to load the machine. The loading crane broke down three times trying to get the machine in our trailer. We again stated to shipper, consignee, and to Commander Shaw that we could not physically transport the machine because of its tremendously concentrated weight. Whereupon Commander Shaw again oredered us to pick up the machine and in so doing exercised those "pressures" that went with wartime agencies and gold braid set up to expedite the defense program. Pursuant to that order we picked up the machine against our own judgment. The trailer we supplied for the loading broke under the load as we claimed it would. A heavy machine hauler had to remove the machine to a railroad flat car where it should have been placed in the first instance. After all these developments Commander Shaw would have nothing to do with the matter. He did not, in our humble opinion, have the moral courage to withstand the adverse results of his own inexperienced judgment. And now we are asked to stand the cost of damage to our equipment and also the cost of moving this machine to the flatcar where it belonged in the first place. This matter has been referred to the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Navy in Washington. We wrote to Commander Shaw first but did not receive even the courtesy of a reply from him. Our claim was disallowed, in our opinion either on flimsy pretext or erroneous information. That is the story in brief. To substantiate our side of the case we have secured affidavits from the traffic manager of our company in St. Paul who first referred the matter to St. Louis for attention; from the driver, Harry Trent, at St. Louis, who went over to load the machine after the Navy's first demand that we handle it; from the driver, Leslie Clayton, who picked up the machine after we again refused to handle, but did handle upon orders from Commander Shaw; from our freight agent, P. E. Ince, who participated in some of the dealings leading up to the damage, and from F. W. Smith, our St. Louis general agent who handled the refusal with Commander Shaw. Their affidavits are attached to this résumé. With regard to our past handling with the Navy we are attaching hereto for your information a true copy of our letter dated April 5, 1945, directed to Judge Advocate General's Office, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. This letter was answered by a communication dated April 12, 1945, from one J. A. Roberts, captain, United States Navy, Chief, General Law Division. A copy of this letter is also attached. We thereafter received a communication dated May 24, 1945, from one F. L. Lowe, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy, in which our claim was declined. A copy of that letter is attached. In answer thereto we again, under date of June 28, 1945, wrote the Navy Department, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D. C., renewing our request for payment. Rear Admiral Lowe again declined responsibility on behalf of the Navy Department in a letter to us dated July 10, 1945. A copy of that letter is also attached. To further identify our claim we are also attaching true copies of bills incurred as a result of this action. These include a bill dated August 27, 1943, from the Flour City Body Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., for $337.72 covering repairs necessary to our semitrailer, company unit No. 147. We are including also an itemized repair bill in the amount of $56.30 covering repairs accomplished at our own shops in St. Paul. As previously indicated this machine had to be moved from our damaged trailer to a railroad flatcar. This work was done by the Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., St. Louis, under statement and supporting invoice, copies attached, amounting in all to $114.96. Our equipment was necessarily out of service for 22 days while repairs were being made. To avoid getting into a maze of figures by which we could show a real monetary loss because we were denied the use of this equipment for that period, we are asking reimbursement in the amount of $10 per day or a total of $220 on this particular item. All of these items total $728.98. It is our position that because of our compliance with the order of Commander Shaw over our protest we have suffered actual damage in that amount and that damage cannot be made any the less real by the application of legalistic double talk on the part of anyone concerned. Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., along with other motor carriers, was asked to give of its best for the war effort. We have our citation from President Truman to back up that statement. But that doing did not result in any bloated wartime profit for we did the job on published tariff rates and not on a cost-plus basis. Rather the job was done at a loss. That is why we are convinced that denial of our claim by the Navy Department is indeed a travesty on justice in every sense of the word. Can you and will you do something to help right this wrong? STATE OF MINNESOTA, County of Hennepin, ss: AFFIDAVIT W. J. Herold being first duly sworn, says that he is employed by Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., St. Paul, Minn., as traffic manager and has at all times here involved been so employed by Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. Deponent further states that in his position as traffic manager for Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., he must assume full responsibility for the publication of such rates, tariff classifications as may be required for the proper, orderly, and operation of the business of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., as a common carrier in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. It is his further responsibility to consider and exercise experienced judgment with regard to traffic and operating conditions prevailing in the motor carrier transportation system of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. The said W. J. Herold, pursuant to his duties as traffic manager of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., recalls that sometime in April of the year 1943 he received at the office of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., in St. Paul, Minn., a telephone call from the John R. Kovar Manufacturing Co., of Anoka, Minn., relative to the movement of some heavy machinery from St. Louis to Anoka. Affiant recalls that at the time this call, as herein described, was received he did not, on the basis of information given by the John R. Kovar Manufacturing Co., advise that concern that Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., would handle the movement of the machine but rather the representative of the said John R. Kovar Manufacturing H. Repts., 80-2, vol. 2- -87 Co., was advised to contact the office of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., in St. Louis, Mo., so that office could determine from the physical facts whether or not Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., would be able, with equipment available, to transport such machinery. Affiant further states that he definitely did not assure the said John R. Kovar Manufacturing Co. that the machinery in question could be and would be handled for the simple reason that affiant could not tell, without actually viewing and examining the machinery, whether or not such machinery was capable of being transported on available equipment of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. Affiant states further that such action on his part is in line with the established practice of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., not to handle or arrange to handle heavy machinery such as that involved here until it is determined from actual examination of the article that same can properly and safely be moved on the carriers' equipment. W. J. HEROLD. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of April 1946. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MISSOURI, City of St. Louis, ss: Harry Trent, being first duly sworn, says: My name is Harry Trent and I live at 2543 University Street, St. Louis, Mo. I am employed by Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., of St. Paul, Minn., at that company's terminal in St. Louis, Mo., and have been employed by them for a period of several years. I am and have been employed as a truck driver. On June 21, 1943, I was sent over to the National Iron Co., East St. Louis, Ill., to pick up a piece of heavy machinery, I had an open-top trailer. I backed into the yard of the National Iron Co. near the machinery that was to be loaded. The machine was to be raised with a crane. Then I was to back under the machine which would thereafter be lowered into my trailer. The crane operator started to lift the machine, but the chains or cable broke. He tried again and the same thing happened. He tried to raise the machine a third time, but on this attempt the clutch slipped on the crane and the machine itself crashed to the ground. I called our terminal in St. Louis, Mo. and explained what had taken place. I was ordered to return to our terminal without the heavy machine. That is just what I did. HARRY TRENT. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27 day of February 1946. My commission expires Jan. 30, 1949. DON WINTER. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MISSOURI, City of St. Louis, ss: Leslie Clayton, being first duly sworn, says: I live at 2632A Nebraska, St. Louis, Mo. I am employed by Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., of St. Paul, Minn., at that company's terminal in St. Louis, Mo., and have been employed by them for a period of several years. I am and have been employed as a truck driver. On June 30, 1943, I was sent over to the National Iron Co., East St. Louis, Ill., to pick up a piece of heavy machinery. I had an open-top trailer, company unit No. 147. I backed into the yard of National Iron Co. and up to the machine which was to be loaded. The machine in size measured approximately 6 by 7 by 4 feet and weighed approximately 14,000 pounds. It was necessary to load the machine with a crane. A crane was available at the spot where the machine was to be loaded. The crane operator raised the machine from the ground. I backed under the machine then raised. The crane operator then lowered the machine into the trailer, company unit No. 147 above identified. With the machine loaded as here described, I drove back to our terminal located at 324 South Fourth Street in St. Louis, Mo. As I pulled into the yard, I noted that the trailer had begun to bend in the middle from the weight of the machine. I parked the trailer and, with the assistance of other employees of Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., placed jacks under the trailer, company unit No. 147, to keep it from bending downward in the middle under the weight of the loaded machine. LESLIE CLAYTON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of March 1946. My commission expires June 11, 1947. ANN O'NEIL, Notary Public. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Rock Island, ss: Philip E. Ince, being first duly sworn, says that he is employed by Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, with general offices in St. Paul, Minn, and that he is authorized to make the within affidavit. Deponent further states that on or about June 1943 he was employed by the said Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., as a freight agent at its station in St. Louis, Mo.; that on or about the date above stated he was contacted by one Commander Shaw, a representative of the United States Navy, and by him asked to inspect a certain machine which was to be shipped from the National Iron Co., East St. Louis, Ill. to the Kovar Manufacturing Co., Anoka. At the time the inspection was made with the Navy representative, in line with the request above indicated, I advised the Navy representative to move the machine to its destination by railroad car because of its concentrated weight per cubic foot of volume. At that time, and after receiving my suggestion, the Navy representative insisted that we move the machine. In line with the order issued to us by the Navy representative we went to the plant of the National Iron Co. to load the machine on our semitrailer. Because of the location of the machine we could not load it, and it was thereafter moved to a spot where it could be loaded by crane into our semitrailer. In the attempt to load the machine in this manner the iron chain on the crane broke. The Navy representative was again told that we could not move the machine because we were certain that the concentrated weight would occasion severe damage to our equipment. A representative of the Kovar Manufacturing Co., one K. H. Smith, had come to St. Louis and participated in the conversations relative to the movement of this machine. At the Navy's insistence another inspection was made of the machine. The Navy insisted that we move the said machine. In response to that demand the machine was loaded. The semitrailer was damaged as anticipated that it would be. Representatives from the Navy and from the Kovar Manufacturing Co. were called to view the damage thus done. The machine had to be moved to a railroad flat car and so moved to destination to the best of my knowledge. PHILIP E. INCE. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23 day of February 1946. F. Willard Smith, being first duly sworn, says that he is the General Agent for Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, St. Paul, Minn.; that as such General Agent he is in charge of said corporation's terminal and operations at St. Louis, Mo. and that he is authorized to make the within affidavit. Affiant further states that in April 1943 he was notified by his company's traffic department at St. Paul, Minn., that a certain machine was to move from the National Iron Co., East St. Louis, Ill., consigned to the Kovar Manufacturing Co., Anoka, Minn. In May he was again advised by the carrier's traffic department in St. Paul that the machine was not to be moved as the consignee had apparently satisfied his needs for the machine elsewhere. In June 1943 the Kovar Manufacturing Co. again asked us to move this machine. Can add here that we had previously advised those concerned that we would be unable to move the machine because it was not available at a spot accessible to trucks. On June 7, 1943, we attempted to pick up the machine but were still unable to do so because of its |