"Dockage" is an illustration of a legitimate and proper charge which often is not made at all. The provisions of facilities for the docking of vessels is obviously a valuable service and one for which the ships should pay reasonable compensation. In Europe, dockage charges are everywhere assessed. In this country they are assessed at some places, notably at New Orleans and Galveston, and in the New York harbor area a similar result is achieved by the rentals which the steamship companies ordinarily pay for piers; but in many other ports the service is furnished free and "dockage" is unknown. Nor is this a privilege which is confined to Americanowned lines, for it is equally enjoyed by foreign-owned vessels. Where the railroads own the port terminal facilities, as they often do, there are few, if any, cases where "dockage" is charged.

The situation as to "wharfage", "handling", and "storage" charges differs only in extent and degree. Such charges are much more general, but frequently they are inadequate or are characterized by unjust discriminations.

A few years ago the Commission made an investigation of this general subject in connection with railroad-owned port terminal facilities on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and there was then widespread complaint in regard to the situation not only from private owners of such facilities who were in competition with the railroads, but also from States and municipalities which were in like situation. In the endeavor to develop and increase the business of ports, it often happens that port terminal facilities are created at public expense, sometimes by States and sometimes by municipalities or special public agencies. These public bodies complained bitterly that they were unable to secure adequate revenues from the use of these facilities, owing to inadequate charges or free service on the part of the railroads. The Commission, however, found that since its jurisdiction was partial and fragmentary, it could not correct

the situation.

After the passage of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, 1933, the Coordinator endeavored to improve these conditions, but he also has found himself handicapped by partial and incomplete jurisdiction. The railroads, over which his authority extends, say that they cannot safely undertake to levy or adjust charges in the absence of any Federal control over their steamship, private, and public competitors. Many of the latter say that they would be glad to cooperate in an improvement of the situation, if they could be certain that all concerned would do likewise, but of this no one can now be certain.

The situation, in short, is one in which valuable services and facilities which ought to be paid for by the ships or the particular shippers concerned are being provided in part at the expense of taxpayers or of investors in railroads and private companies. It is also one in which these privileges are unequally distributed, with no control or guaranty of the fairness of the distribution.

The only certain means of correcting these conditions is Federal regulation, and such regulation is in reality a logical and essential part of Federal regulation of water carriage in general. It was for this reason that provisions for the regulation of "wharfingers" were included in the original draft of S. 1632 at the last session of Con

gress. The same purpose can be served, however, by the separate bill now recommended.

It is not to be expected that either the ships or the shippers should be in entire accord with this proposed regulation. However, at the public hearings before the Congressional committees last winter it received much support, particularly from those immediately concerned. It was favored by a very large number of the port terminal operators. Aside from certain owners of special facilities, namely, grain elevators and fertilizer wharves, the only objectors among these operators were certain States and municipalities. These objections were based in part on legal contentions and in larger part on a misunderstanding of the purposes in view.

There can be little doubt of the power of the Federal Government to regulate such operators to the extent that they are engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, even if they are States or municipalities, and a brief on this point has been prepared and can be furnished. Terminal and other railroads owned by such public bodies are now subject to the regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, insofar as they engage in interstate or foreign commerce, and the same principle is applicable to the operation of port terminal facilities.

The misunderstanding was shown by a fear that some injury to State or municipal operations was intended whereas the reverse was the case. In fact, as has already been indicated, the matter was first brought to the attention of the Commission by complaints of States and municipalities that existing conditions were depriving them of legitimate and proper revenues. Any public body which desires such revenues has much to hope and nothing to fear from this legislation.

The separate bill now recommended for the regulation of "wharfingers" is being prepared after numerous conferences with interested parties. As in the case of the Water Carrier Bill now before the Senate, the intent is to meet all serious objections which can be met without sacrifice of principle. The bill will be ready for presentation at an early date.

REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION

In last year's report, the proposed reorganization of the Commission was combined with a plan for a permanent office of Coordinator of Transportation, to be included in the new Commission set-up. Here the latter plan will be discussed separately.

Prompt, efficient, just, and wise administration is as important in public regulation as the law itself. Quality of administration depends, broadly speaking, on: (1) the men at the top, (2) the funds available, (3) the plan of organization.

These are stated in the order of their importance, but for present purposes only the last need be considered. Many a regulatory commission has been ruined by poor appointments or lack of adequate funds, but there is little that general legislation can do to help such

matters.

So far as staff is concerned, the law now leaves the plan of organization to the Commission, subject to the funds appropriated, which is as it should be. The question is whether the organization of the

Commission itself, so far as it is prescribed by law, is the best that can be devised for the work in hand. It assumes importance because of the proposal to concentrate regulation of all important forms of transportation in the Commission.

The Commission, as created in 1887, was a body of five members of equal authority, a majority constituting a quorum. As duties were added, it was gradually expanded, first to 7, then to 9, and finally in 1920 to 11 members. In 1917, when it was given nine members, it was authorized to set up divisions, as it might deem necessary. To these divisions, of not less than three members, the Commission may assign such of its work, business, and functions as it sees fit. Action of a division has the same force and effect as if taken by the Commission, but is subject to rehearing by the latter. In 1933 the Commission was given further power to assign any of its work, business, and functions to an individual commissioner, or to a board composed of an employee or employees, with the proviso that this authority should not extend to "investigations instituted upon the Commission's own motion, nor without the consent of the parties thereto, to contested proceedings, involving the taking of testimony at public hearings.' Action of an individual commissioner or employee board is subject to reconsideration or rehearing by the Commission or by a division, but if a division so acts, its action is subject in turn to reconsideration by the Commission, The Chairman of the Commission is selected by the members, and is not relieved from any of the duties of a commissioner. For many years it has been the custom to select a new chairman yearly, each member serving in rotation. In the divisions, the member senior in service acts as chairman. There are now five regular divisions, which means, of course, that certain commissioners serve regularly on two, and others on only one.

Up to the passage of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, the peak in the work of the Commission was reached soon after the return of the railroads from Federal control. The Transportation Act, 1920, imposed heavy new duties, including certain temporary and very onerous tasks. These had to do with the settlement of the claims of several hundred carriers against the Government, arising under the guaranties of net railway operating income granted for a time by the Act, and with loans to the carriers under a temporary revolving fund. At the same time the Commission had to begin the new work of regulating security issues, granting certificates of convenience and necessity, preparing a consolidation plan, supervising acquisitions of control, recapturing excess earnings, and the like. Contemporaneously, serious traffic congestion occurred, requiring expeditious handling of emergency service orders. Furthermore, the valuation work of the Commission was then at its height, and a pent-up flood of rate complaints, growing out of the rate changes made during Federal control, was released upon it.

The result was congestion in the Commission's docket, which required enlargement of its staff, and this in turn required increased appropriations. It took time to secure the funds and build up the necessary staff, and meanwhile work accumulated. After 1926 the tide began to recede. The guaranty settlements are now a thing of the past, recapture has been repealed, basic valuations have been com

pleted, there has been no recent congestion in traffic requiring service orders, the trend in rate complaints has been downward, and the regulation of telephone and telegraph companies has been transferred to the Federal Communications Commission. The docket is now of normal proportions.

The tide of work, however, is again on the rise, as evidenced by the duties imposed in connection with loans to railroads under the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, the additional duties in connection with railroad bankruptcies and reorganizations under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, those contained in the Air Mail Act, and now the very heavy duties of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. If a Water Carrier Act, a Wharfinger Act, and perhaps an Air Carrier Act are added, the rising tide will swell into a flood and bring with it needs in administration which have not heretofore existed in so great a degree.

If the Commission is to regulate all important forms of transportation, this must be done in the most even-handed and impartial way. There must be no preference of one form of transportation over another for any reason other than "inherent advantages." The Commission must, therefore, have thorough knowledge of each variety of transportation and its peculiar characteristics. Rules and regulations made to fit railroads may not, and probably will not, fit trucks or water lines. Each kind of carrier must be dealth with on its own merits.

Yet there must be a consistent general policy of regulation. What is done with respect to one group of carriers must not be in conflict or cross purposes with what is done with respect to another. The ultimate object is a well-coordinated and smoothly working system of national transportation. Attention must not be concentrated on the parts to the neglect of the whole.

While still in its preliminary stages, regulation of motor carriers promises to be a formidable undertaking. It may consume about as much of the Commission's time and attention as does railroad regulation, although for different reasons. The Commission has never before been called upon to inaugurate at one step, a full-blown system of regulation of a great transportation industry, and the difficulties are multiplied by the fact that this industry has grown up almost overnight and is still in a formative and more or less chaotic state.

A railroad is an institution which cannot escape attention. It is there for all to see. All railroads are common carriers, and with few exceptions they carry both persons and property, and all kinds of property. In general, they are large and well-organized enterprises, with trained men in all departments. Practically all engage in interstate commerce in one way or another. The great bulk of the mileage is operated by not more than 100 independent systems.

The motor-carrier picture is very different. Passenger carriers are, in general, distinct from property carriers, and the latter are of many kinds and descriptions. Some are common carriers, but many of these confine their operations to special commodities. Many more are, or claim to be, contract carriers. They do not hold themselves out to serve the general public, but contract to carry for a few selected customers. Some serve only a single shipper. Many operators, particularly common carriers, have regular routes, but many more do not,

and there are thousands who go anywhere for hire, at least within a specified territory. Some operate on their own account; the operations of others are controlled by so-called brokers. In general, they are small enterprises. A great number are individuals operating only a single truck. Many do not engage in interstate commerce. The Act wholly or provisionally exempts various classes of carriers. Nobody yet knows how many motor carriers will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, but there seems reason to believe that the number of common and contract carriers and brokers will be upwards of 100,000 and perhaps as high as 200,000. When it comes to safety regulations, an even greater number of private carriers will be added. A task of major dimensions will be to locate all who are subject to the Act in one way or another, for, unlike the railroads, it is not difficult for motor carriers to escape attention.

In important aspects of regulation the magnitude of the work is measured, not by the volume of traffic handled, but by the number of operators. Difficulties are greatly increased also when many of the operators are individuals with little general training or education. It is evident that innumerable questions will arise in motor-carrier regulation which have not arisen in railroad regulation, and that it will, to a considerable extent, require a new technique. Closer contact with the operators will be necessary, through an extensive field organization, and formalities must be reduced to a minimum. Regulation must be flexible in character, capable of being expanded to the needs of the large, well-organized carriers, and of being shrunk to fit the capacities of the thousands of little operators.

The regulation of water carriers may not be as complex and difficult as the regulations of motor carriers, but it will be an undertaking of great magnitude, particularly if it covers foreign as well as interstate commerce and the manifold operations of the "wharfingers." As in the case of motor carriers, there will be contract operations to deal with, as well as the operations of the common carriers, and it is clear that the regulation of carriers engaged in the overseas trade presents great legal and practical difficulties. Much caution and wisdom will be necessary if good results are to be secured, and a thorough understanding of the traditions, customs, practices, and methods which have characterized water transportation from time immemorial.

If similar jurisdiction over air carriers is added, the Commission will deal with a form of transportation which is in its infancy and developing with startling rapidity. It will be necessary to guard against any rigidity in rules and regulations which might operate to circumscribe or impede this development. The task will be to prevent abuses and maintain healthy conditions which will promote sound growth. With both water and air transportation the Commission has already had experience, but the comprehensive regulation proposed will greatly increase both duties and responsibilities. In the field of railroad regulation, the Commission will be faced with problems from now on which will tax its abilities severely. This is especially true of the financial reorganizations which must be worked out for the numerous railroad companies that are now, or may hereafter be, in bankruptcy or receivership. The importance and difficulty of the Commission's task in shaping these reorganizations can hardly be overestimated. Each one will be a special prob