APPENDIX B

REPORTS FROM FOURTH VICE-PRESIDENT MR. C. L. HENRY, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION AT HEARINGS IN WASHINGTON, D. C.

INDIANAPOLIS, May 24, 1912.

Mr. T. N. MCCARTER, President, American Electric Railway Association, Indianapolis, Indiana :

DEAR SIR.-Availing myself of the opportunity to hand you this during your visit at Indianapolis, May 25th, I beg to report that in accordance with your telegraphic request from New Orleans I went to Washington and appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission on May 2d, representing the interests of the interurban electric railroad people at the hearing upon the question of whether the nine-hour law, applying to those giving or receiving train orders, should apply to trainmen of electric lines who received such orders by telephone in connection with the operation of their trains.

Before going I met in conference at Indianapolis with other representatives of interurban companies, members of the Central Electric Railway Association, and at this conference arrangements were made whereby Mr. John T. Beasley, Terre Haute, attorney for the Terre Haute, Indianapolis and Eastern Traction Company; Mr. James M. Barrett, Fort Wayne, attorney for the Fort Wayne & Northern Indiana Traction Company, and Mr. C. D. Emmons, General Manager of the Chicago, South Bend & Northern Indiana Traction Company, met me at Washington for the purpose of assisting in the presentation of our side of the case to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

After we got to Washington we met Mr. Weadock, attorney for the Detroit United Railway and Mr. Buckland, Vice-President and General Counsel for the New York, New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and several other representatives of interurban interests. General Harries also went over from Louisville to lend his assistance in the matter.

At the hearing before the Commission representatives of the steam railroads first presented their views. After that representatives of the interurban traction companies presented their views. It had been arranged beforehand that I should first present a general statement of our plan of operation and also a short argument on the proper construction of the statute; then Mr. Emmons was to follow, giving a more detailed statement of the manner of operating interurban electric lines. After this Mr. Beasley was to close the argument on our part with a full and careful discussion of the legal phases and the proper construction of the statute. This program was carried out, and, in addition, Mr. Burton, attorney for the Illinois Traction Company, also made a short address. After our part of the argument was closed four or five representatives of the various railroad labor unions addressed the Commission and with this the argument closed. Without going too much into detail I will say that in the first place we found that on February 12, 1912, the Commission, without any notice to either the steam railroad companies or the traction companies, at the request of representatives of the labor unions, had entered an order upon the very question that we were called to discuss, in which they held that trainmen, receiving orders by telephone in

connection with the operation of their trains, were subject to the nine-hour rule. It seems that upon the entering of that order attorneys of the Illinois Traction Company, learning of it, had opened up a correspondence with the Commission on the subject and that this correspondence resulted in the setting down of the matter for hearing May 2d.

The Commission did not give any special indication of their views on the question during the argument. We took the positive ground on our part that the statute would not bear a construction that would bring our trainmen under the nine-hour rule. The steam railroad men took the same position. The representatives of the labor unions did not really discuss the question but made it clear that the animus of their action in the matter was to prevent the displacement of telegraph dispatchers by requiring trainmen to take train orders direct by telephone. How far this pressure may influence the Commission we were, of course, unable to determine. I may say, however, that we all agreed that if the Commission should enter an order attempting to limit the hours of our trainmen to nine hours, because of the fact that they receive train orders by telephone, that the interurban companies would be justified under the law in refusing to comply with the order.

In this connection I desire to suggest the advisability of having some one at Washington all the time to keep carefully posted on actions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and also proposed legislation in Congress, so that the companies interested may be at once notified. The advisability of this was strongly impressed upon us by the fact that the Commission had entered the order referred to, February 12, 1912, and that none of us, so far as we could learn, except the Illinois Traction Company, knew of it until notice was given us of the hearing on May 2d. Whether arrangements should be made for this purpose by the American Electric Railway Association, or otherwise, is a matter which can be discussed, but those of us who were at Washington at this hearing were strongly impressed with the desirability of such an arrangement as indicated.

Respectfully,

CHARLES L. HENRY.

SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDUM FILED BY
MR. C. L. HENRY

Sometime after the appearance before the Interstate Commerce Commission, at the hearing upon the question whether the present Hours of Service Law, limiting the number of hours per day to nine hours, does not apply to motormen and conductors on interurban cars where they receive train orders by telephone direct from the train dispatcher, information was sent out that a bill had been introduced in Congress and was pending before a Congressional Committee to so amend the present Hours of Service Law as to include motormen and conductors, operating interurban cars, who received train orders by telephone direct from the train dispatcher.

Upon inquiry it was learned that this bill was referred to a Subcommittee, of which Mr. Martin, the author of the bill, was Chairman, and upon request the interurban men were granted a hearing on the bill before this Sub-committee. It was accordingly arranged that Mr. Beasley and myself, who had been present at the argument_referred to before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and others should attend this hearing. This we did, and after presenting the arguments in favor of the interurban companies, reported that Mr.

Martin had shown an inclination to so amend his bill as not to include interurban car men, but was anxious that such an amendment if made should be so drawn as not to invalidate his bill. Later on he notified us that the Committee would report the bill with an amendment, limiting its application, so far as the Eight Hour Service was concerned, to trains of more than two cars and the bill was afterwards reported with that amendment but nothing more was done in the premises at that session of Congress.

The representatives of the interurban companies, present at the hearing, while not satisfied with the amendment made by the Committee, felt that it was a step in the right direction, as it showed a purpose on the part of the Committee to exclude interurban motormen and conductors from the provisions of the eight hour service clause in the law.

MR. TOWNLEY: If it is in order, I have a matter that I would like to submit. I have prepared a resolution which I will read and then explain:

"RESOLVED, It is the sense of this meeting that co-operation between this Association and others concerned looking to a reduction in the disputes and litigation over alleged electrolytic damage is desirable."

Many of us have had electrolytic disputes. Those of us who have not are nevertheless interested. It has been impressed upon the minds of many that there is much unnecessary disagreement over the elements of the question about which there should be no room for disagreement. When an electric railway is attacked in any locality by another corporation having metallic conductors and alleging electrolytic damage experts are employed first on one side and then on the other. These experts usually have different points of view, often over matters which should be a common basis of agreement. Not infrequently the newspapers get hold of the controversy and press notoriety gives the public an exaggerated idea of the damage and tends to create unjustifiable feelings of alarm, all of which is in the direction of discrediting our business and does harm.

An informal discussion among members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers favored an attempt to form. some sort of a national joint committee upon which this Association and other national bodies such as the National Electric Light Association, the Gas, Water and Telephone interests would be represented. Such a committee could study the

question and endeavor to formulate some basic principles or methods of procedure which would tend to eliminate unnecessary controversies. If this Association appointed representatives on such a committee any conclusions they might reach would of course be referred back for approval or disapproval. They would in no case commit us to any action without our knowledge and we would be kept informed of what was going on. The resolution which I have offered has been presented with a view of advising the Association of these facts and of getting the sense of the meeting for the benefit of our officers.

(On motion, the resolution was adopted and referred to the incoming Executive Committee for action.)

VICE-PRESIDENT HARRIES:-I have a telegram received from Mr. McCarter, in which he says:

RUMSON, N. J.

GENERAL GEORGE H. HARRIES, First Vice-President, American
Electric Railway Association, Chicago, Illinois:

On this closing day of the Convention I extend my cordial thanks for the many expressions of regard, notice of which I have received by wire. I congratulate the Association upon the success of the Convention and wish all a safe return home.

THOMAS N. MCCARTER.

(Ex-President Arthur W. Brady in the chair.)

CHAIRMAN BRADY:- The next business is the report of the Committee on Nominations, of which Mr. Robert I. Todd is chairman.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS

To the American Electric Railway Association:

GENTLEMEN:- Your Committee on Nominations, appointed on Wednesday last, after careful consideration of the matter in hand, begs leave to respectfully submit for the proper action of this Convention, the following nominations for Officers and Executive Committee Members for 1912-1913:

For President, George H. Harries, of Louisville, Ky.

For First Vice-President, Charles N. Black, of San Francisco, Cal. For Second Vice-President, C. Loomis Allen, of Syracuse, N. Y.

For Third Vice-President, C. L. Henry, of Indianapolis, Ind. For Fourth Vice-President, John A. Beeler, of Denver, Col. For Members of the Executive Committee: The Officers and the Presidents of the affiliated Associations.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT I. TODD, Chairman.
J. K. CHOATE,

F. W. HILD.

Committee on Nominations.

CHAIRMAN BRADY :- Gentlemen, you have heard the report of the Committee on Nominations. What action do you desire to take?

MR. DUFFY:- I move that the report of the Committee be received and approved.

(Motion put and carried.)

CHAIRMAN BRADY:- The next business in order will be taking formal action on the election of officers under that report.

MR. HEGARTY :- I move that the Secretary be instructed to cast the ballot on behalf of each of the delegates present, in favor of all of the persons named in the report of the Committee on Nominations, for the various offices to which they are nominated.

(Motion seconded and carried.)

SECRETARY DONECKER:- I hereby cast the vote of the Convention unanimously in favor of the gentlemen named in the Report of the Committee on Nominations.

CHAIRMAN BRADY:- You have heard the Secretary's statement that the ballot has been duly cast, the result, therefore, is that General Harries is elected President of the Association for the coming year and the other gentlemen are elected to the offices named.

I now have the very great pleasure of introducing, to you, the President for the coming year, General George H. Harries.

PRESIDENT-ELECT HARRIES: There is not to be any speech, gentlemen, I merely intend to keep on working in the same old way. There is no hope for one, I notice, even if one passes into the class of "has-beens." Mr. Brady has as much to do