serve the interests of the Post Office Department, the public, and the carriers involved. In fact, it is believed that some of the amendments would merely enact in the law provisions which the Post Office Department would probably intend to observe in actual practice. We invite your consideration of the proposed amendments and thank you for this opportunity to be heard. Senator CHURCH. Mr. Wilson, I take it from your testimony that you would anticipate that buses, with the limited space they have available for the carrying of mail, would confine their participation largely to pouch mail, even after the enactment of this bill, should the scope of the bill be extended to include them. Mr. WILSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator CHURCH. And that the principal advantage to the bus companies would merely be in the changes involved in the procedure of obtaining or rendering this pouch-mail service. Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. That is correct, sir. Senator CHURCH. By eliminating the procedures that now require special bidding? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Senator CHURCH. Or special contracts? Mr. WILSON. Definitely. Right. Senator CHURCH. May I ask whether your amendments are designed generally to confine the participation of bus companies to pouch mail? Mr. WILSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendments appearing in appendix A are designed for that purpose, adapting the transportation of mail for bus transportation. Senator CHURCH. I see. Very well. We will give the amendments our consideration, and we want to thank you for your testimony. Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. Senator CHURCH. Our next witness is Mr. L. H. Ristow, chairman of the committee on mail transportation by bus. STATEMENT OF L. H. RISTOW, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON MAIL TRANSPORTATION BY BUS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OPERATORS, AND VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF TRAFFIC, GREYHOUND LINES Mr. RISTOW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee. My name is L. H. Ristow. I am vice president for traffic of the Greyhound Corp., Chicago, Ill. I appear before your committee today in support of S. 3960, on behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Operators as chairman of its committee on mail transportation by bus. NAMBO is the national trade association for the intercity motorbus industry. It serves as spokesman for nearly 1,000 carriers which account for about threefourths of the intercity motobus transportation in the United States. The intercity bus industry serves all the major cities in the country. What is even more important, it furnishes the only means of public passenger transport in thousands of communities, which, for economic reasons, the railroads and airlines do not serve. The bus industry also supplies the only package-express and first-class mail service in many of these communities. Service to the smaller communities is growing in importance with the railroads' gradual withdrawal of trains. We have, as indicated by a letter which is addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, and to which is attached a copy of a letter addressed to Senator Johnston, a proposed amendment to S. 3960, which would appear on page 2, line 8. After the word "transportation" the following would be added: "of passengers" and the word "off" would be changed to "or", which would make it read, "for the transportation of passengers or general commodities by motor vehicles ***" Senator CHURCH. This amendment would have the effect of extending the bill in its whole scope to bus companies as well as to the common carrier motor vehicles that transport general commodities? Mr. RISTOW. That is right. I would like to point out further, Mr. Chairman, that one of the advantages, we believe, for the Post Office Department and the public is the schedule frequency maintained by the bus operators which would permit the Post Office Department to send out its mail throughout the day rather than holding it for a night departure, which we understand would relieve the Post Office in a good many instances in the storage of mail, and in other instances would permit, if given to us at the proper time of day, would probably permit delivery at second or third delivery in the larger cities, because you could get it there earlier in the day. I would also like to point out that one of the bus companies recently signed a contract with the Post Office Department for the carriage of a hundred pouches of mail per day. This comes about because a train connection was removed and this mail now comes in by train and would have to lay over for a considerable period of time. But by use of the bus carrier, an immediate connection is made and the mail is taken to the ultimate destination so that delivery can still be consummated within that same day. I believe that the subcommittee is very familiar with the bus industry generally, and its type of service, and how it can handle this, so there would be no point in my going into it in detail. It was covered to some extent by Mr. Wilson's testimony. I, for the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, desire to express our appreciation for the opportunity of appearing before your committee. Senator CHURCH. Fine. Thank you very much. Your letter addressed to me and your letter addressed to Senator Johnston will be included in the record at this point. (The letters are as follows:) Hon. FRANK CHURCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OPERATORS, Chairman, Post Office Subcommittee of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: On May 8, 1958, the president of our association, Mr. Arthur M. Hill, addressed identical letters to Senator Olin D. Johnston, chairman of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee and Congressman Tom Murray, chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. These letters indicate our interest in the bill submitted by the American Trucking Association which provides for the transportation of mail by motor carriers of property. S. 3960, which you introduced on June 6, and H. R. 13465 and 12830, all identical and for the purpose mentioned above, now have been introduced. As stated in our letters to Senator Johnston and Congressman Murray: Because of the restrictive and unwieldly requirements of advertising and competitive bidding which now apply to motor carries, truckers and bus operators have been severely limited in the performance of the vital service of transporting the mail and the mail service to the public has suffered as a consequence. We believe that the proposed bill will go a long way toward alleviating this situation. The intercity bus industry serves thousands of communities which are not reached by the railroads or the airlines. Buses are run on frequent and regular schedules and thus are uniquely suited for the expeditious transportation of first-class mail to and from these many communities. We therefore respectfully request that the coverage of the aforementioned bill, S. 3960, be extended to include passenger motor carriers. Believing that enactment of S. 3960 would be eminently in the public interest, we respectfully urge your favorable consideration of it. We therefore respectfully request that this letter and the accompanying letter, which President Hill addressed to Senator Johnston and Congressman Murray, copies enclosed, be made a part of the record of this hearing. Very truly yours, A. W. KOEHLER, Secretary-Manager. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OPERATORS, Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, Chairman, Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: We understand that you have under consideration a bill submitted to you by the American Trucking Association, which provides for the transportation of mail by motor carriers of property. The bill, as presently drafted, does not include motor carriers engaged in the transportation of persons. On behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, we respectfully request you to extend coverage of the bill to include passenger motor carriers. We have discussed the proposed bill with officials of the Post Office Department and representatives of the American Trucking Association and we have been advised that the inclusion of intercity bus companies in the bill meets with their approval. This purpose can be accomplished by inserting the phrase "transportation of passengers or" in the definition of "carrier" appearing in section 2 of the bill. A redraft of section 2 with the proposed insertion italicized is attached. Because of the restrictive and unwieldly requirements of advertising and competitive bidding which now apply to motor carriers, truckers, and bus operators have been severely limited in the performance of the vital service of transporting the mail and the mail service to the public has suffered as a consequence. We believe that the proposed bill will go a long way toward alleviating this situation. The intercity bus industry serves thousands of communities which are not reached by the railroads or the airlines. Buses are run on frequent and regular schedules and thus are uniquely suited for the expeditious transportation of firstclass mail to and from these many communities. In addition, as you are no doubt aware, the railroads are engaged in a sharp curtailment of their passenger service and are in the process of abandoning passenger service to many communities which the bus companies will continue to serve. The deterioration of mail service accompanying the abandonment of passenger trains will cause great public hardship and inconvenience unless legislative provision is made for the use of buses as well as trucks in the transportation of mail. In recognition of the need for improving the expanding mail service, through increased utilization of highway carriers, the Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation has recently recommended the enactment of legislation O provide for the transportation of mail by highway carriers. We are convinced, therefore, that enactment of enabling legislation, such as that proposed by the American Trucking Association, would be eminently in the public interest and we join in urging you to sponsor such legislation in the Congress. We would be most grateful to you for your assistance and will be happy to discuss the matter with you at your convenience and to furnish you any additional information which you may desire. Very truly yours, SECTION 2 ARTHUR M. HILL, President. (c) Except for the purposes of section 13, "Carrier" shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation which holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission, or from a regulatory body of a State, Territory, or possession of the United States, for the transportation of passengers or general commodities by motor vehicles on public highways in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce for compensation over regular routes, except an express company to the extent it is subject to part I of the Interstate Commerce Act. Senator CHURCH. Our next witness is Mr. L. E. Ernst, general manager of the National Star Route Mail Carriers Association. STATEMENT OF L. E. ERNST, GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL STAR ROUTE MAIL CARRIERS ASSOCIATION Mr. ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to apologize for not bringing sufficient copies of my prepared statement that everybody might have one. Anyone who is lacking, if they will leave their name and address, I will be glad to furnish them with one. Senator CHURCH. We are hopeful, Mr. Ernst, that the record made here at the public hearing this morning may be printed, in which case everyone who is interested will have full benefit of your state ment. Mr. ERNST. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Lawrence E. Ernst, general manager, National Star Route Mail Carriers Association, with headquarters at 301 East Capitol Street, in Washington, D. C. First, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before this committee to express the views of the mail contractors association, with respect to enactment of a new law to be known as the Motor Vehicle Carrier Mail Act of 1958. This proposed legislation was introduced by Senator Church, of Idaho, under date of June 6, 1958, as S. 3960. I have been employed in my present position for the past 22 years, and prior to that was under civil service in the Bureau of Transportation, Post Office Department, having served in that Bureau for more than 37 years as a clerk, and official in the Postal Field Service, and prior to my retirement I was Director, Railway Transportation, Post Office Department here in Washington. I believe that my 40 years of experience in postal transportation qualifies me as an expert in this field of service and my statements are being made in the interest of all concerned, and more especially the postal patron. I shall follow the text of the bill and will identify each section with comment, if any are deemed necessary. Section 2 (a) and (b). No comment. Section 2 (c) states: Except for the purposes of section 13, carrier shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation which holds a certificate of public convenience, etc. Section 13 states: The Postmaster General is authorized to provide for mail transportation by contract for periods not in excess of 4 years, without advertising for bidswith any carrier which holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier, etc. I am sorry, but I do not understand the reference or importance of section 2 (c) to section 13. Perhaps this can be explained. Section 2 (d) would, in my opinion, give the Postmaster General the right, and we can all appreciate the need, of commandeering the carrier's facilities, his help, equipment, and so forth, and at a price he wants to pay, not what the job may be worth. Could it be the feelings of the postal officials that the use of such facilities would greatly relieve the congestion that now exists in most post offices, and especially on the loading docks during certain hours of the day. This would not, in my opinion, afford the relief expected or desired, and would result in 1 or 2 extra handlings of the mail. Each time mail is handled or rehandled it is expensive; besides each handling exposes the mail to damage. We cannot lose sight of the fact, that while it is anticipated the bulk mail would be turned over to the motor common carrier for handling through their facilities, yet the mail must first be handled over the post office docks before such handling can be taken over by the motor carriers. Postal facilities, in the larger cities, where trucking would be more advantageous, are not sufficient to permit such handling. May it be pointed out that over the years, in almost all of our larger cities, the postal units designated to handle the bulk mail is adjacent to railroad facilities, with only enough dock space to handle the local mail. The interchange of mail between the post office and railroad companies is done by mechanization, such as conveyors, and so forth. I refer to such points as New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, and so forth. To transport mail in and out of these cities would be a physical impossibility. Senator CHURCH. May I ask at this point if this bill would really constitute an obstacle in connection with the handling of the mail in the post offices in these larger cities, where the post offices themselves have been designed to fit in with the railroad facilities, in that the bill is permissive, rather than mandatory? I would expect that in those cases where it is more advantageous to continue to deal with the railroads that the Postmaster General would do so, and would deal with the motor vehicle carriers only in cases where it is more advantageous or more efficient to deal with them. What would be your observa tion? Mr. ERNST. The record shows that the Post Office Department now deals with highway transportation where necessary. Now, as I understand, the intent of the proposed legislation would expand the authority whereby he could utilize the common carrier from the larger points, where we have the tie-in with the post office and railroad companies; and that this bill would not divorce the Post Office Department from the railroads. |