Mr. HAYDEN. In orchestras; yes, sir.

Mr. REID. When you get your working conditions satisfactory you do not care how much your boss makes out of anything, so long as the conditions and pay is satisfactory; is that right?

Mr. HAYDEN. Of course, we are interested that he keeps the industry open.

Mr. REID. That is right; you take care of your work.

Mr. HAYDEN. Naturally, we are interested in making money.

Mr. REID. That is what I say, the first thing in working conditions is your pay?

Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. REID. The first thing the public and everybody want is good service, is it not?

Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. REID. That is the paramount issue, and how much we are willing to give in order to get that. That is what I would like your solemn judgment on.

Mr. HAYDEN. We come to the arbitration clause. How are you going to say that there is going to be a continuity of service if there is no machinery set up?

Mr. REID. I think they can do that no matter what is said in the unification. What I am telling you is right in the substantive law. You could have had it written four or six years ago if you wanted.

Mr. HAYDEN. If a theater should be closed to-night it would not be possibly any serious inconvenience to the people. But if the street cars did not run and take the people to work there would be a serious inconvenience.

Mr. REID. I agree with you there, that can be done. Everybody in this committee agrees that that is the thing desired, but we have a particular thing before us here. Now, I want your solemn judgment as to this particular thing in the capacity that you hold as a citizen. Mr. HAYDEN. Our group have said that they believe it ought to be determined by the people who know how. If it is higher than what they have put it, then we know we have got a fair valuation fixed. Mr. REID. That has been done by the Public Utilities Commission. Do you want to throw them out and get a new group?

Mr. HAYDEN. The Public Utilities Commission fixed the valuation of both companies, of course, I think as of 1919. The court, then through certain legal actions, finally agreed upon a modification from $14,000,000 to $25,000,000, or something like that, was the difference between that which the Public Utilities Commission fixed and what the court fixed.

Mr. REID. You would have the Public Utilities Commission obey the court, would you not?

Mr. HAYDEN. Oh, certainly.

Mr. REID. Do you want us to authorize the Public Utilities Commission, the legally constituted authority, to do what you are talking about?

Mr. HAYDEN. I think as a guide to you gentlemen you could call upon one of the Government valuation boards, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, to give you their opinion. It might be a guide. It might not be helpful. You might say, "Well, if we accept it, they will go to court anyway."

Mr. REID. That is true; everything you say is true, but still it does not get us anywhere.

and

Mr. HAYDEN. I wish I was able, Mr. Reid, to map out a plan here that would be so clear to everybody-the public, the company, this committee that there would be no question of ifs and buts about it. If I had the light I would give it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the representative of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Dickman, present?

Mr. HAYDEN. Do you want to appear, Mr. Dickman?

Mr. DICKMAN. Oh, no. What I desired was to get the statement of Mr. Hayden, the chairman of the committee for the Central Labor Union, presented here. He has done so, and that covers the field. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other representative of the American Federation of Labor here? (No response.)

Mr. REID. May I ask when the next session of the committee will be? I have to go to the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. At 2 o'clock, Mr. Reid. The committee expressed a desire yesterday to have Mr. Wilson appear.

TESTIMONY OF HARLEY WILSON

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman).

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and state whom you represent. Mr. WILSON. My name is Harley P. Wilson; party to the unification agreement.

I should like, with the permission of the committee, to make just a brief statement, after which I will be glad to answer any questions that may be propounded to me, to the best of my ability. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that notwithstanding the publicity I have had in this matter, as a matter of fact, I have played a comparatively small part in it. It may be true that these negotiations that have resulted in this unification agreement were initiated by me. The agreement is constantly referred to as the "Wilson agreement." This is not the Wilson agreement; that is a misnomer. This agreement is the result of months of negotiations between the parties thereto and with the Public Utilities Commission. I want to say to the committee, if you please, that the credit for this great constructive piece of work that has been done in this unification agreement can be justly placed upon the shoulders of the executives of the Washington Railway & Electric Co., the Capital Traction Co., and the Public Utilities Commission.

These negotiations were in process for many months. The companies appointed respective committees to conduct the negotiations. The matter was threshed out in all its ramifications, complexities, and details; and the matter was then submitted to the Public Utilities Commission. They conducted extensive hearings upon it and then conferred with the companies relative to certain modifications that, in their opinion, seemed to better the agreement as presented. Those modifications were agreed to by the parties to the agreement. The agreement was executed and, as provided by law, laid before the Congress by the Public Utilities Commission for approval or rejection.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, as briefly as I can, that prior to initiating these negotiations I have referred to I have spent the better part of a year in a study of the transit situation and the problems involved in it in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia. I found that the incessant demand of the public that a merger of these transit properties be brought about was well founded. It was based upon logical and sufficient reasons. I found that in the operation of the transit properties of the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia a great economic waste was going on. Nobody was to blame for that; and in that statement I do not intend to reflect upon the management of the properties as at present operated in this District. I am familiar with transit properties all over the United States. I know of no transit properties more capably, more ably, and more efficiently operated than those in Washington. The growth and development of transportation, however, has been over a long period of years. The properties have grown from small beginnings to a very large and very comprehensive system of transportation. They have been under separate and distinct ownership. No better example of the fallacy of multiple operation of transportation facilities in any city can be found than in Washington. The inevitable results of competition in the field of public service have resulted here, with the result that this economic waste has been going on for some years and is impossible of saving except by unification of the properties and unit control and operation. I therefore appreciate the problem from that standpoint.

Engineers of long and wide experience, of national reputation, were employed to make a study of transportation from the mechanical standpoint. Several plans were studied; several definite, concrete plans of rerouting and rearranging the present systems into a unified operation were carefully developed and worked out. They were expressed in terms primarily of service to the public; secondly, in terms of economics from an operating standpoint. It was developed that in some settled, definite, specific studies of rerouting and reapportioning economies were possible to the extent of from a minimum of $1,000,000 to a maximum of $1,350,000 per annum, depending for the mean between the two to the extent that rerouting, rearrangement, and readjustment might be brought about. The questions involved the interruption of service of a rerouting, questions of the practicability of rerouting, the ideal in transportation service-all those elements were taken into consideration. Hence the large number of plans that were studied contemplated inclusion in the studies of those various elements that enter into it. No plan definite and concrete was written into the unification agreement, because the subject is a big one, requiring exhaustive study on the part of engineers and experts; and in the final analysis any plan of rerouting, rearrangement, and readjustment of this service must be passed upon by the governing body, established by law in this case, and the Public Utilities Commission.

Hence, these plans, these studies, were mere suggestions; and in the hearings before the Public Utilities Commission, in order that the hearings might be reasonably expedited, that contention might be avoided through the presentation of a large number of suggested plans, my engineer, Mr. Bibbins, was called upon to point out the results that might be obtained from one of the large number of plans

he had evolved. The discussion and the testimony back and forth. brought out the fact that in that particular plan, if adopted, economies, savings in the shortest possible time of being put into operation of $840,000 a year would result. Mr. Bibbins also stated in his testimony, as you will find in the record, that that plan could be carried to a much broader sphere of activity and usefulness, depending upon a greater time of putting it in force and effect and depending upon how far it might be thought wise to go in the way of capital expenditure.

Hence the problem has been approached from a service and economic standpoint. There can be no doubt, Mr. Chairman, and I think the testimony has perhaps clearly indicated that, that there is room, vast room, for improvement of service in the city of Washington, by making available all the facilities of the present multiple control transportation for the common cause and for the common purpose in providing transportation for this District. The public have recognized that for upwards of 20 years.

In order that I might be thoroughly familiar with just what the public demand was here and upon what it was based, I caused a study to be made of what I am pleased to term "The merger history. I hesitate to add to this record the history of merger in the city of Washington. I have it here, however, taken from official records, newspaper volumes, Congressional and public service commission records. So that all the facts set forth here are from official sources. I will, of course, read this if it is desired by the committee. That, however, will occupy a very considerable time. and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I submit it at this point, either to be read by me or placed in the record, as the committee sees fit.

Mr. GILBERT. I think most of the members have read it. So I do not think it would be necessary to read it again.

Mr. WILSON. I think not, perhaps, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. GILBERT. I have read it.

Mr. WILSON. Would you like to have it put in the record? I offer it for such purposes as the committee may see fit to make of it. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

FOREWORD

A MODERN, UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AN URGENT NATIONAL CAHTAL NEED

Merger efforts and suggestions during the past two decades have failed to bring about the much-desired single transportation system for the District of Columbia. Civic leaders, public officials and the companies themselves have long been agreed in principle that there should be but one system, but for one reason or another they have never gotten anywhere in their efforts to bring it about.

The enormous recent growth in population, the general improvements for the beautification of the Capital City being developed by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and the extensive public-building program of the Federal Government all emphasize the immediate and urgent need of amalgamation of the transportation systems without further delay.

HISTORY OF EFFORTS FOR MERGER OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

I. OBJECT

The object of this report is to present in concise form the outstanding developments in previous efforts to bring about a consolidation of the transportation facilities of the District of Columbia and in the metropolitan area with the following two-fold purposes:

1. To discover the reasons why all previous efforts have failed; and

2. To discover what, if any, constructive suggestions have been made in the past which may be embodied in an effective consolidation plan.

II. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Reference has been made to the files of the Washington newspapers and particularly to the thoroughgoing topical index maintained by the Evening Star, to editorials in the Star, Post, Herald, Times, and News, to the records of the Public Utilities Commission and of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, to the records of the several transit companies, records of the Federation of Citizens' Associations, the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, of the board of trade and chamber of commerce, and of the District of Columbia Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. In addition numerous individuals have been consulted.

III. SCOPE

To a much larger extent than is generally appreciated, there is a very close interrelationship between the development of the transportation facilities of Washington and efforts to bring about a consolidation on the one hand, and on the other the development of beautification plans for the National Capital, and the solution of the city-wide traffic problem which has rapidly grown more complex with the growth of population of the city and of the metropolitan area. Therefore this review deals with the following two problems:

1. Growth and development of Washington as a National Capital and as a business community, and

2. Growth and development of the street-railway, bus, and electric systems.

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON AS THE NATIONAL CAPITAL

A. The L'Enfant plan.-The District of Columbia, having been developed from the outset as a Federal Territory, now comprises about 61.4 square miles of land area. All of the property was first acquired by the United States Government. Under the direction of President George Washington and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Charles L'Enfant, a civil engineer, drew up a plan for laying out the city, which in general principles has since been adhered to. The basis of the L'Enfant plan was to fix suitable locations for the various Government buildings, taking into account their interrelationship, convenience of access and beauty of environment, and to make use of broad diagonal avenues with small parks or circles at their intersections. This plan had beauty as its main object, and of course was not predicated upon actual growth of modern transportation conditions. The L'Enfant plan prepared in 1791 made provision for a city of 200,000 inhabitants in 1891. In fact the population in 1890 was 230,000. A population of 1,000,000 must now be provided for.

B. The McMillan report. Because of the rapid growth of the city and frequent departures from the L'Enfant plan, a commission, headed by Senator McMillan, acting under authority of a Senate resolution adopted in 1901, made a report urging that the L'Enfant plan should be adhered to in the outlying and rapidly growing sections of the metropolitan area. It brought about the location of the present Union Station, and dealt generally and comprehensively with the further beautification of the city. The report made no reference to transportation facilities.

C. The zoning ordinance.-Because of the increased density of population and the promiscuous mixing of residence, commercial, and industrial districts, a zoning ordinance became effective August 30, 1920, under the administration of the zoning commission. This ordinance has proved extremely helpful in regulating the heights of buildings and locating commercial, residential, and industrial sections.