BRIDGE ACROSS WABASH RIVER AT MOUNT CARMEL, ILL. FEBRUARY 27, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 9980] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9980) to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Wabash River at Mount Carmel, Ill., having considered the same, report thereon with an amendment, and as so amended recommend that it pass. Amend the bill as follows: Page 1, line 3, strike out the word "time" and insert the word "times" in lieu thereof. The bill as amended has the approval of the War and Agriculture Departments. Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill, H. R. 9980, transmitted with your letter of February 18 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate. This bill would extend for one and three years, respectively, from March 29, 1930, the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Wabash River, at Mount Carmel, Wabash County, Ill., authorized to be built by the States of Illinois and Indiana by act of Congress approved March 3, 1925, and heretofore extended by acts approved July 3, 1926, March 2, 1927, March 29, 1928, and March 29, 1929. Favorable action on the bill is recommended. R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary. REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS OF PERSONS FEBRUARY 27, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the. state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. PARKER, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 10288] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the transportation of persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor carriers operating on the public highways, having considered the same, report thereon without amendment and recommend that it do pass. NECESSITY FOR THE LEGISLATION The principle of government regulation of public utilities has been generally adopted in this country, both in Federal and State matters. The enactment of legislation of the character here proposed will be merely the extension of this principle to a utility which, although comparatively new, is one which is developing with great rapidity in all parts of the United States and bears a close relation to the public interest. It is believed that a brief reference to certain facts relating to the transportation of persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor carriers for hire will suffice to demonstrate the necessity for Federal regulation. Almost all the States have laws regulating intrastate transportation of persons by motor carriers. Furthermore, up to 1925, State regulatory bodies generally had assumed that, in the absence of Federal regulation of the operations of motor carriers in interstate commerce, the States had power to control such operations. In that year, however, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the cases of Buck v. Kuykendall (1925), 267 U. S. 307, and Bush Co. v. Maloy (1925), 267 U. S. 317. In these and subsequent cases the court made it clear that the States, even in the absence of Federal regulation, could not require certificates of public convenience and HR-71-2-VOL. 2- -39 necessity in the case of motor carriers engaged exclusively in interstate operations, or otherwise unduly burden such interstate operations. As a result, at the present time the interstate transportation of persons by motor carriers is unregulated, except in so far as it is subject to control by the States, under their police power, with respect to the imposition of regulations for the purpose of insuring the public safety and convenience, and the exaction of fees for the purpose of defraying the expense of administering such regulations. See Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), 235 U. S. 610; Kane v. New Jersey (1916),_242 U. S. 160; Morris v. Duby (1927), 274 U. S. 135; Clark v. Poor (1927), 274 U. S. 554; Sprout v. South Bend (1928), 277 U. S. 163. For further evidence of the necessity for this legislation, attention is called to the committee hearings hereafter referred to, and to Report No. 18300 of the Interstate Commerce Commission, dated April 10, 1928 (140 I. C. C. Repts. p. 685), containing findings and recommendations of the commission with respect to the necessity for legislation regulating interstate motor carrier operations. This report was made pursuant to an investigation begun by the commission on June 15, 1926, on its own initiative, because of the close relationship which the operations in question bear to the railroad operations governed by the interstate commerce act, and because (to use the words of the commission) of the "rapidly increasing importance of motor transport." The thoroughness of the commission's investigation is indicated by the following paragraphs from its report (p. 698): In the course of the investigation hearings were held at Chicago, Ill.; St. Paul, Minn.; Portland, Oreg.; San Francisco, Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Detroit, Mich.; Boston, Mass.; New York, N. Y.; Asheville, N. C.; Dallas, Tex.; Kansas City, Mo.; and Washington, D. C. At these hearings more than 5,000 pages of testimony was given by over 400 witnesses. The evidence, including 403 exhibits, largely of a statistical nature, covers practically every phase of transportation by motor bus and motor truck throughout the United States. The witnesses included Federal, State, county, and municipal officials, railroad executives, operators of motor busses and motor trucks, farmers, livestock men, manufacturers, shippers, representatives of State regulatory bodies, motorbus and motor-truck associations, chambers of commerce, traffic associations, farm bureaus, highway commissions, and the automotive industry. In its conclusions, beginning on page 745 of its report, the commission recommended Federal legislation for the regulation of interstate commerce by motor carriers operating as common carriers of passengers on the public highways over regular routes or between fixed termini, and further recommended that the legislation regulating such carriers should require the securing of certificates of public convenience and necessity, and the filing of liability insurance or indemnity bonds for the protection of the public. The commission also recommended the regulation of rates, fares, and charges. While there are differences in detail, it is to be noted that these recommendations of the commission are in line with the provisions of this proposed legislation. UTILIZATION OF STATE AGENCIES In providing for the administration of this legislation, the committee has had a keen appreciation of the fact that, in almost every State, boards and commissions have for years been administering laws regulating public utilities of various kinds, including motor carriers |