Jla.V, 192&. b7 .lilugn A• BB.4!l (A• J. ot,tawa U:a.iverait1, 1925) eubmifted to the Department ot Eoonomics and the Facult7 of the Graduate Scheo1 ot ihe tJmve:rattv of Kanaa' in partial t&lltillment ot the requ.1rament a tor th$ degree ot Jtaster ot Arts. ~7.f~ Head or Chairman ot Department A. prospe1•ous and growing eouniq is oonstantlJ' tac1:ng new problems. IJXVestigations are neceasaJ7 it these problems are to be eolved rather than 0011ieealtl4• The writer was impressed by the ma:DI newspaper artiples discussing the problem of bus regulation and de~ te:rm1ned to 1nveatigaie the field. Ho attempt has 'bean ma.de to present a coiq>lei»ie solution, but it is hoped that the me,nt oomparisona made between t'.he regu.latio?lB of the various S1:a.•es e:pose some of the chi et problems. Neither h the investigation ooiqplete as s. Z-e"View of state rega.lat1on, since Xentu.cq and New JersGJ' have passed new lawa since the completion of this thesis. Before a. year has passed several other new lawe may be expected sinoe nine states hold legislative sessions during the year 1926. F«leral legislation. with its etteota on state regQlation, undoubtedly will not l>e postponed mob. longer. !Vhis paper would have been fa:r more difficult had U not been tor the splendid cooperation of the various state conmiseiona in fu.rnish- iJJS the wi-1t_. with oopiea of their laws, and their :rules and :regu.lations. Ifot one state ha.v1XJB regu.lation tailed in. ihis respeot, and 1t is great]¥ appreciated.. ~e 1 ibrariee us• have been none the less helpful. mie writ er is g:reatl1 indebted to the Cbioa.go Ma.n1c1pal Reference L1brary. the State Lib~al.7 a1t ~opem, the libr&rJ of the Ze*1e of Xaneas M\m1o1pal1tles, &'Di the ihre~ l'ibraries of the tTn:lve;rs 1 ty 0£ Xansas. i Fhlall.7. he wishes to thank those prof'esso:re 1n the Departmen~ ot :mooXtomios who have1 given h'3n ivaJ.u.able advice. and particularly Protesaor Jeld P. Jensen, under whose direotion this thesis has boen written, tor the many valua~le oritieiame and suggestioDG that have made the 1r«est1sation and writing leeo dif'ticult. LBW'~enee9 1!'.ans~a. •aa-. l\1126. ii commts . Pt dace contents) Ollflll'U OHAPl:ER (lfE ............ lm!RODUC'.CtON 1-. ~eoent d$ire1opmenta in tran$pertat:ton svatem ll • State& bl.V!:ng btUl1 re~lation xu:. !he ez:\ient of the ti•(5Ula.\1on I~. Oc.uniatri..orui exeroialng power v. ~he £ield of this thesis A. Defi'ni'bS.on1 , 1 lll 3.. Per&ont or oorpora'\ions S 2 • Moiro~ vebiol• 3. For c.ollilenaation . . 4 4 D Between tixect termtnl or over a rogu1ar route 5 591 Public highway s. aer:U.fioa'be & B-• Applicability . '. VI. Wh• approaob to tlle eubjeot CHAP.i!EB ii.2 ~Ut1If F$ ~O OPERM!IOU -~ ............ -- x. the cert~fioatQ 0£ oonve~ienoe and neaeselty A. 'l!he appU.oation for a certj.f!.oa\@ l. fhff form of tb.G eppU.oation 2 • Jzbib!:bs to aooompany, the applloation Eb Ed.denoe Of, aorporate oharao'he~ b• f}le finanoiE\l statement o • Map o:B 1'l1e propcused route d, Propo1ea rats soh(j(Jule ea Proposed time Goheauie f • Deaor:Lption of equipment lO 11 12 13 iii a. Ad4iti(Jlletl prereq\llsltea to the srtmt:tng of 6 oeriifioatca o.. ihe ~~iiinG of tbe ~•rtifioatE.4 14 1. !he IlUnole poU.01 2 • ~be M1ohigaft po~toy ia s. !Cbe Sf)Utb na11oto. polioy , , J.7 4. Wbe C8J.ifom1a and Ptnnayl'fttnis. pots.or 18 s. 'fhe Utah f$e4tar ayatem 861 . n. Intentd.tu bond or lnsutanoe ' ux. tbft payment of feea ~ taxtlf . xz. Prboiplea of raile mald.ng • ! lXI • StatG$ ht\~g r'tgUlai)ion Of re.t.,e tV • ibe Z'sgulatton of :rate1 A, Application for certU1.oato to bo aooomptmted by a 32 36 ached ult:t of, fl'opoaecl i-atea 56 s. lillng of ratoe sobeuQ).e with the a~aaitm 37 o, Scbtaaule of farea available for pu'bllo tnspaction 38 D• ~&JC' to irlc f~i-ee a;td rate1 59 l 1 Powf the J.aw 1h O.onatitu·hA.onaU .. t~ of the at~tutea c. Review ot tho orders of \be ocmia1!3.on 1>. Intwf,renoe with tn·~er1t~te oOttllGroe A'PmIDIX A. Stat_e ooi1'1miisaions exeroi.sing pOVlor APPENDIX. B. inaettt:1ity bonu or tnauranae $uhedulea APPENDIX O • le'1J& and t~a 56 88 62 63 86 '15 f 6 77 va '19 so 81 82 83 ea 88 90 92 9S OB.APTER ONE INTRODUOT ION RECENT DfiELOPIEN'.CS .llI TRANSPORTATION SYSTJ.ll Within tha past ten years a great change has taken plaoe in our transportation system. The motor bus has been one ot the chief instru- ments of this change. It haa developed traffic as well as deprived the rallroads ot some of the tra:f'fio that they had developed~ The competition, which this new form of transportation has afforded tha railroads~ is one of the chief reasons why bus regalation has reached its present status. For some timG it has been the publio policy in the United States to re- gtilate public servioese Btls regulation has merely kept pace with our changing transpo~tation system. Fortunately those having to do with bus regulation have taken a broad ViS'N of the transportation system, result- r l ing in a batter and more pennanent system than previously existed. §..T.AT'ES HAVING BUS RmULAT ION !l?he evolution of bus regu.lation in the states of the United States is probably one of the bast indications 0£ the development of this syetem of transportation that we have~ Only nine states do not regulate busses at the present thne, and Georgia and Tennessee hold that the7 have Jurisdiction al.tho they have never exereised it~ 2 Eight of the thirty-nine states having regulation, have enaotedg for the first ti1aeg the statutes for suoh regulation during the year 1925. 3 lo The Motor Bus Situation in 1~25.. Harvard BUsiness Review, January 1926, Vol~ IV, Page 163 26 Delaware9 Floridap Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas. 3. Ida'h.01 Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Oarolina? south Carolina and Wyoming. ~e extent of the ~eg;ttlation v~ies considerably in the different states as will b® ehown. Alabama regulates only in the matter o:f' taxes and U.cenains ot dr!vo~$. Na.Al Jersey l"Ggulataa only those buseee oparat ing parallel te Gnd en the same e~reet as a. etreat ra!lwiwo '.Ml.a Nebraska Com- mission has e~e~Jiaed 1;& attthority ehiefly in the' matter 0£ insurance ot carrie~s asainst liabilit~o At the other extreme stand the oomroiesione ot eonsiderable authority which tha;y hava exeroieed. tor some t ima(> ln most Uates the regulatory powers have been delegated to al- reator bu.s": "The term •motor bus' as used in this act shall be held to inolu.da a:n:g motor vahjole which in- discriminatel1 carries pa$sengers and incidental freight or axprass9 tor hira0 regu.larly over a tixed route or between f1xed termini." This defi- ni tion of the tarm "motor bus'q is understood \Vhenevcr the term is used in lo States using the term "persontt are: Arkansas, Oaliforni~ Oolorado~ Oonnecticu.t, KentualQ{. Minnesota, Montana, New York~ North Oarolinat North Da.kotat) Oregon; Pennsylvania, South Oarolina~ South Dakota. Utah, Virginia, aud 'Vyomi:ngo States using the terrn''aorporationna:rfFH Arltan$aa, Oalif'ornia, Colo- rado, Connect iout, Kentuceye Minnesota, Montana, North Oa:rolinal1 North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, rennsylvania9 South Oarol1na9 South Da'kota11 Utah, Virginia a.nd \Vaehington. 2e Definition l3t Section 4782, Chapter 2s 311 Idaho, Kontuoity, Minnesota., North J)akota9 and Washington use the term "auto transportation oompaey" o Arkansas, California, Ohio, and Oregon use the term "motor transporta:tion company''~ 4~ lowa1 Kansas, Maine, Minnesotaa Montanat North Dakota. Oklahoma. Oregon, south Dakota, Utah~ and washingtone 60 Seotion ol4~2e 60 Arkansas1 Oolorado. Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania9 and Utah~ 7. Illinois• Iowat KanSa$, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. this thesis. Oonneetiout and Rhode Ialand use the terms npublio service motor vehiale" and "J:ltne7"~ .,The term 'Jitney' shall inolude afJ:!I public service motor vehicle operated in \vhola or in part upon a:tf3' street or highwa,- in such manner a.a to afford a means of transport at ion similar to that afforded b3' a Street railwq company, by indiscriminately reoaiVi?JS or discharging passengers; or running on a regular route, or over arJ.7 l portion theraot; or between tbed termini." 1"h.is definition would in- dioa.te that the term jitney originated when the vehicle dedgnated by it was ahiatly a competitor of the street oar~ North Carolina, South Oaro- lina and Vi~ginia use the term "motor vehicle ~a.rrier". FOR QQMfEEifSATIOlV This ha.t1dly needs defininge The lawe of North Dakota and Oregon define it however. Section 1 (h) of the North Dakota Law reads as follows: - "The words 'for aompensation' mean for ranunerat ion of titJJ7 kind, paid or 4. ' promieed, either directly or illdiraotly. An ocoassional aooomodatiye trans- portation service by a person not in the transportation business, while on an errand tor himself• shall not.be construed as a service tor conpensation. even though the person acoomodated shares in or pews the cost of the service." There a.re several instances ot attempts to avoid thia oondi tion. In York Railw&iY Oompan;yv. Longstree~, the Pennsylvania Commission held thatt "The operator of a so-oalled community bus for the carriage of pass- angers on reglllar schedule, not only trom a suburban tract to a city, but between intermediate points, without a fixed charge but advising parsons not to ride on trolle1 oars but to wait £or the bus and give awa:g a nickle, two oants less than the trolley far~, is a common carrier within the 1. Section lw Chapter 77, Pltblio Acts 1921~ Oonnectiau.t. Jurisdiction of the Commission and is required to secure a certificate as a p~requisite to operation. ul In Lehign Valla1' Transit Oo. v. Bauder the Pennsylvania Commission made a similar decision. "A special arrange- ment by which passengers of an auto bus line are current members of a 'connmmi ty auto club' 11 the qualif'ioat ion tor which is the p~ent of one dollar, upon which the members receive seven tickets as a gitt, is in the nature of a subterfuge and does not alter the ser'Vioe of the auto bus l ina a.s a. common carrier. 112 The tarm "between tixed termini or over a regg.lar route'' indi- oates that there is an established service which runs with some degree ot regularity. Six states define this term and iise it in their laws. 3 The term "fixed termini" which is defined dlld used by Arkansas and Ohio indicates praotically the same thing. The Maine Law uses the words 4 "regular rou11as0 in referring to this ala.es of servic~. This lira! tation makes the regulation applioable to motor bus servioa whioh is similar in oharaoter to that offered by railwaus which operate over their ovm right Of W83• PUBLIC 1J IGIDVAY The writer knows of no bus com9any operating over a private hig'bw8", but regulation is intended to apply only to thosa operating O'Ver a public higb.\vay. The term "public highway" is defined by fourteen lo Publio Utilities Reports. 1924 Do Page 750. 2o P~ Ue R~ 1921 D~ Paga 404, 3. Oaliforniafl Rentucky, Minnesota, North Dakota, sou th Dakota, and Washington. 4~ Sec. 16 p. Lot 19.23~ Co 2llo 5. state laws. 1 2hree state la.us use the term "improved public highwt=\V"• 2 The Iov1a Law uses a. broader term dafinlng the term ''highwau" to mean •v ovary street, road, bridge~ or thoroughfare ,of aJ1Y ltind in this state". 3 The Arizona Oo:mmies ion defines the term 0 improved. statefil oounty or muni- cipal highw~s" • to rnea.n "any State, Oounty or Municipal road or highwa¥ or city street on which publio funds have been spent for the oonstruotion, maintenance, or improvement thereof". 4 The wo.rd "certiti.oate" 1s used to refer to the oert if icata of convenienae and necessity issued by the varloue state oomroissionse Nine state laws define the word ncartificate" and it is used by most of them 6 without definition. North Dakota D.nd South Dal.rota define and use the word npennitn to desig'llate the same thin~., Sh states issue different classes of oartif1cates depending upon the kind of service to be rendered. 6 In thase states the Class "A .. Oerti:ficate is granted for th~ type 0£ ser- vice here considared. 7 APPLICABILITY In spite of the careful definition of the law as to the type of carrier that it is intended to regulate, there often arises a question as to whether a servioa comes within the jurisdiation of the commission or not_. A considerable part of the administrative work or the aomnissions deals with such questionsQ A decision of the Illinois Commission illus- le Arka.nsa.so Oalitornia, Kansas91 !{entu.cey. Minnesota, Montana, l:~o1·th Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and washingtona 2. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. 3o Section 2 (c) Chapter 4, Laws of the Forty-first Assembly. 4. Rule l. General Order Noo 94-A; 5a Minnesota0 Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma., South Oarolina0 South Dakota, Virginia, and w ashington. 6. North Carolina~ North Dakota~ South Carolina~ South Dakota, Virginia0 West Virginia. ?o That is transportation ot persons between t1xed termini or over a regalar rout a. 6. tratas this point. "A company engaged in transporting passengers b~ motor bus over th~ publio straats and highways of the state for hire, accepting illdisarimina.tely all persons desiring to avail themselves of the facilities I ottered., holdi:ng itself out to the public and advertising that it would furnish a definite servioe for a definite fee, was held to have impressed the business with a public use making it subJeat to legislative control as to rates and other matters within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.nl Tlr.~ APPROACH ~ ~ §UBJEOT The phases of regulation to be considered are prerequisites to operation, rates, sa~vioe, and administration. The first three o~ these chapters are more ooncernad with the legislative tunotion performed by the le~islaturas and tha oommissions than with the administration of laws and ~egulationso The final chapter is devoted ohietl1 to the administra- tion of the laws and ragu.lations by ~he commissions. l~ Pe u. R. 1922 B~ Page 699,, Wagner and He Bu.s Lines Vo Eddy Motor BUS Go~ Sae also the following cases: p., Uia Ro 1924 Al) Page 499. Re: Lester-Hubert co. (Calo ) P. u. R. 1924 Ao J?age 50l. Relohman VG Reynolds. (Cale } p"' u. .a. 1924 A,, Page 6020 South Pekin & Pekin Bus & ~ransfer Ooe1 l?e Uo R. 1924 A. page 502. PesevA.nto v. BYJ?d• Po u. Ro 1924 A~ Page 502. Eddy Motor Bus Co~ Vo Johnson. (Illinois) p. u. H. 1916 D. Page 16. I Scranton R. Co~ v. Walsh. (Penn.) OHAPTE.R ~WO PR3RB1QUISITES TO OPERATION TH~ 01fu.1TIFIOATill .Ql. OOlWENil::N°CJ1 Alm. UO:@SSITY ~he certificate of convenience and naoess1ty ie the chiel pra- raquisite to tho operation ot a motor bus oornmon oarriar. ~1hir•y-six of the thirty-nine states regu.latint; busaes require certificates, but their charaotor varies somewhate Of the three states not requiring certificates, Ala.be.ma and '.Nobraeka requb•e no pe:rmi t whatever, .and. Na1 Jersey merely re- quires the Board's a~proval o! local licenses in case some pa.rt or the bus route parallels on the same street tbe track of a street railway. Phe certificate issued by the Ma.ssaohusatts Commission is rathor pre:f'unctory, the local consent being the more essential thing. The granting of certificates of convenience and necessity is probably the most significant davioe used by the commissions. It ia in the investigation prior to granting the aartifioates that the commission must 1exeroise the foresig..lit that should charaoterise such a group of mon. The eommission in considering the applications must oareftllly weigh and balance the probable convenienoo arising trom suah service~ against the aost, in a broad sense, ot that se:evioee It roust oonsider tbe in:fluonoe on other transportation systems and deoida whether a.n addition to the present serviee will a.du to or subtraat from the entire serv1co in the endti Its view must be long range, and it must see the "unseen"~ -~ very temporary service will do the public little good directly, a.nd it ma¥ demorall~e oompeting services to suoh an e2tent that. they will long render inaftioi~nt and expensive service~ in tha face of an increasing demand for that service. The capacity of the commission to weigh carefully the various considerations involved in the granting 0£ a certificate, depends largely ·upon the inf'ormation in ilia hands at the time of the hearing" T11a logiaal wq to secure most of this information b to require the applice.nt to f'ur- nish as much as possible, because he ha.a a knowledge of some of the im- portant considerations. !J!E. FO:::tM .QE. THE APPLICATION It is desirable that the form and content of appliaation be standardized for the convenience in oonaiderationo Pennsylvania requires l that the petition be in the form prescribed by the Commission. The form requires the name of the petitioner, a list of franchises obtaineo from local authorities, e description of equipment, a financial statement, a desaription of the proposed route, other transportation systems iu the territory, and the reasons why the proposed service is neaessary. 2 Twenty- five states having regulation prasoribe the form of the application, but most of them require it to be accompanied by necessary exhibits, suah aa route schedules, :rather than including them in the petition proper. 3 Or- dinarily the ohief requirements of the form of petition are that the name and address ot the applicant be gi van, and the names of the principal officers if it is incorporated. Ma?l1' ot the comnissione turn1sh blank .d. forms tor the applicant to fill in~- l. Pexma~lvania &lla 3, Rules of practise before the Commission. 2CJ Page 21 of the Ru.les or praot ise before the Oormnission. 3o Ari~o:na, Arkansas, California. ldaho9 Illinois, lndiana0 Iowa, Kansas, Maryland~ r..taasaohusetts, liichiga.n, Uontana, North Carolin~ North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma~ Oregon, J?ennsylirania.si South Oarolina.GI South Dakota.0 Vermont, Virginia, washi:ngtons and west Virginia. 4. See the Application Blank ot Nevada. 9. EXHIBITS !Q. ACCOPm?ANY ~ ,APPLIOATIO!f It is in the exhibits accOmpaJJ3illb the appliaat~on. that the company desiring to do bueinesso puts all of its evidence as to the neoeasiiy 0£ such servioee Besides the required exhibits. the comn!isaions welcomo additional evidence that may help in its decision. tjVll>ENOE .QE. OOlll?ORAT:tJ OH@ACTl;lR ll A COHPOP..ATIO~! In granting an application the commission must place consider- able responsibility upon the receiver of the cert.ificntao It has no de- sire to grant certi.fioates tp :fiotitiou.s parsons. that can not be lawfull7 controlled. Colorado~ ~ontana, Ohio, and ~ashlngton require a copy of the partnership agreG.ment to be tiled it the a1:>plicant is a partnarshipe Oolo- rado, Illinois, Kansas, and Nevada require e~idenoe of its corporate ohar- aoter if it is a oo:rporationo Illinois provides that no certificate shall be granted to Bl'r}}' public utility, except common carriers engaged in inter- l state oor!llnerce, unless it 1e a domestic corporntione Ru.le 4 of the Illinois Commission requires that the application be accompanied by a certified copy or the charter of the corpor~tion~ The Washineton Depart- ment of Public 1'Vorks made a decision in regard to the sa:me problem$ ''A oo- partnership which ls in effect merely a co-operative ooncorn with a dUlm'\V partnership to hold a certificate should be granted a certificate for the operation of motor vehicles only upon condition that it be roorgo.nized in such manner that the copartnership owning the certificate will also be the actual operator and entitled to all the receipts from such operationo"2 1~ Seotion 28 of the public utilities aat of Illinois~ 2. P~ u. R. 1923 E1 Page 461, Re: Portland-Vancouver Stage Line. lOo ~ FINANCIAL STAT~.U~NT ~he financial statement of the applicant gives the commission some ides of the ability of the applicant to inaugurate the service, and the likelihood ot permanenoy of the serviao when inaugurateds North Dakota requires that the applioetion be accompanied by "A detailed sta.te- 1nent showing the assets and liabilities of such applicant"IPl Nine other states have like provisions in regard to this mattare 2 MAP QR §ETOfi ..Ql ~PROPOSED ROUTE ' 1'Want~-s1x of the states require a sketch or map ot the proposed route to ba filed with the application. 3 The commission~ grant the oertificate for all of the proposed route or only a portion of it. Five states require that other and competing transportation s1stems be shown, tor the information of the oommission. 4 Massaohusstts, M.innesota, Penn~ sylvania, and South Dakota require that a statemen' or license be pro- oured :f'rom the highway department or the commissioner of highv ... ~aws for the proposed route. The liaensa or permission of local authorities on the route is a oommoi! requb•€mento 'j,'he Illinois Cormnisaion ru.lad that the ob- Jection of a munioipality should not be held in itself to oonstituta a bar 5 to the granting of a certificate. Twelvo statest however, require the l~ Section 6 (?) of Chapter Sl. Session Laws of 1925e 2e Kansas, Minnesotai Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont9 Virginia9 West Virginia, and Wyoming. 3o Arizona, Arkansas, Oalifornia, Illinois, Iowa~ Kansas, Kentuaky, Maine, Maryland, Massaahusatts 9 ~iohigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Oarolinaci No:rth Daltcrtae Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Sollth Carolina, South Daltota, Utah!> Vermont, Virginia, Wa.shingtont West Virginia, and Wisonein. 4o Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania9 and Vermonte 5s Ee Us RG 1923 Ct page 67Q aa~ Ohioago, No So & Mo R. Oo. llo l license or consent of local authorities. It is the rate schedule that portrays iho aost ot the proposed sa:rvioa to the publia, and this must be given due consideration ln the deoision as to the publia convenience and naoaseity. Twenty-seven states 2 require that the proposed rate schedl.lle be filade Further consideration of the rate sahedula ia given in tha chapter on rates. PROPOSlID TIWfE SCHEDULE The time schedule, on the other hand, portr83s the extent ot the service to be of:tered11 and the adequacy of that service in relation to the demands of the public. Twent~-nine sta~es require that t~e proposed time 3 schedule be filedo Further consideration of the tlms schedule is given in the Chapter on servioe. 2. Arizl)na, Califor.o.ia0 Colorado, Massaohueattsi. Kaw Harnpshi:re~ New Jersey. New York, Pennsylvania~ Vermont, Wast Virginia, Washington, and Wiseons~n4 See ?Ublio Utilities Reports~ 1922 B, Paee $57, Re; Douglas-.Ag\la Prieta Stagea (Ariz.); 1918 O, Paga 320, In Re: General Motor Tra..~sportatibn Ooe (Cal~); 1923 ~. Page 750, Re; James, (Colo., ) ; 1923 "E, Page 759, .aea Paradox Land and Tl·ansport Oo. (Oolo.); 1921 E; Pa.'~e 49~9 Re~ Decker~ (New Jersey); 1922 A, Page 6439 Unitad Traction Oo., v. Smith9 (N. Y. SupQ Ct. Spe Te 187 N. Y~ Supp. 377); 1~23 o. ?age G45, Re: Buffalo Jitney Owners Asso. {No Y.); 1922 D. Page 580~ Re~ Sound Transit Co. (Wash Sap. Ct. -- Wash --, 20~ Pao. 931)~ Arizona, Arkanfias, California.' Colorado• Oonnectiout, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, XentuoJW, Maine, f..iaryland~ li1iahiga.n, Uinna-, ' ~ sota, Montana9 Nevada, North Oarol1~9 North Dakota~ Ohio, Okla- homa, Oregoni South Carolina, Sou.th Dakota, Ylrginia, Washington9 Wast Vi:rginia.Q and Wisoonsi'n. ' Arizona, Arkansas, CaJ.lfornia~ oon11ecticut, Illlnois~ Iowuf Kansas 0 Kentuoky, Maine~ ?~aryland. Michigan, Millll1 1 0000 u to be 1922 B, Page 38", Re: Houser. io Po TJ111 .a. 191? A9 ?age 723u Allegheny Valley Street Ro Oo. V.a Greoo" p{!) u~ 't, ...... ~ 1922 o~ .Pago 5l4t B.e: Quinn. pl;) u. He ,1923 E, Page 96,. Re: AlliOo p~ u. Rs 1923 :m, Paga 384, ' .Re: Ol1estsr Auto :Bus Lineo Pt1 u., R. 1924 A, Paga 459, Rei Xuhnso Fourteen other states have policies' similar to California and Pennsylvania, in that ~hey protaat existing monopolistic sarviae so long l as it is adequ.atee several of these states have had regu.lation long enough to develo~ a definite policy in granting certifioatese The Arizona commission ruled that, "A showi~ must be olear and affirmative that an existing utllity is unable or has refused to maintain adequate and satisfactory &ervice9 before a oertlfioate of convenience and neoessi ty will be granted for the opora.tion o:f an additional eerviae"G 2 Likewise, nThe Commission in considering the whole matter concerning the operation ot a stage line betwaan points herein involved is mo~a thorough- ly convinced than aver that its theory of properly reg~lated, restricted operation, is the only one tha~ will give to the public the servioe that ib is entitled to and a proper rate whioh will give the transportation company a reasonable return on its investment, and at the same time give a low rate to tha ~ablio whioh, after all~ is the paramount issue to ba oonaider~tlo A common aarrier has only one thing to sell and that is ser- vioe to the vublio, and it the public m23 receive the very best service at the lowest rate, it ca~tainly is not oonoerned in whether that service 3 is given them by ona aomp8.lJY or by a do.Zien". In another case, however the Oonmissiou did grant a certificate when lower rates were offered than 4 those of the railroad. In defining what constituted publio necessity, the Oolorado Com- lo Arizona, Colorado~ Oonnectiautwi Kansas. Maiuo, Maryland9 Nevada. New Hampshire. New York, Ohio 0 Rhode Island. Vermont~ Washington, and West Virginiao 2o P. U. Ro 1924 O, Page 600~ Re= Branham0 Sea also P. U. Ro 1992 Eo Page 850• Re: Jerome-Union Stage Linefll 3o Pe Uo ll$ 1924 A~ PagG 467. Ra: Mingu.se See also Pe Uo Ro 1923 Oo PaGa 166-0 Ra: Dodson; Po Uo R~ 1924 A, Page 459w Re: Stokey~ 4$ P& Uo R~ 1923 Dt Paga 6430 Re: Hatchell. 20. mission ruled that, "It is not requ.i:rGd that an applicant £or a certificate of aonvenienoo show suoh a condition to exiet as makes additional service indispensable to the public, but merely tbat a reasonable necessity exists as will add to the conventenaeiof the publie0 • 1 In regard to the protect- ion of adequate servioe, the Commission deoided that, ''Per-mission should not be grant~d to oper~te a motor oarrier servioe in territory whioh exist- ,... 2 ing ea.ri•iers adequately se.!'Va or ara able and willi:t1g to serve" o The ser- 21. vioa must be adequate, however, to be protaet ad, for it was ruled that~ "A common carrier nn.tst afford reasonably adequate and effioiant servloe to the publia 1to ba proteated in that service from oo~etition; and aVidenoe of the financial aondition of a railroad furnishes no ground of defense or protest to the granting ot a certificate ot convenience and necessity for the opar- at io11 of a motor bua lil1eu. 3 The Connecticut Oommi~siott has stood £or the pol1oy of regulated monopoly and p1·oteotion of existing Oal"l"iera. ln Re: :Oridgeport the "Ap- plioation by owners of motor vehicles £or aertifioates of convenience and necessity to operate jitneys in a City ware denied on the ground that, al- though frequent jitney ser.rviae mlght prove a temporary convenience, it would ultlmately result in tho abandonment of the street railway with all the oonaaquenoes ot such abandonment upon :ru.tura public convenience and neaassit3". 4 0 'l!he Connaotiou.t Oommhsion is authorized by statute to select one person or aompany from a number of applioants £or oertilioate to operate motor vehicles and11 by granting it alone a oertifioa.te as to a aertain route~ l. PJ) u(l Ro 1921 D. Page 48So Ra: Donovano See also Pe u. .R .. 1920 :a,. J?ago 651. Rei overland-Motor 3xpress co. 2. Po ul) Ro 1924 o~ Page 303. Re: Bhoadss Sae also l?,. Uo a. 1922 o. .Paga 215. .Ra: I-icGloohine 3. p., UQ R~ 1923 Bo P98a 242., Re: Ca.r'Ver. 4$ P~ Uo R~ 1922 BQ J?ase l93. Ra: Bridgapor.t 11 22. oreat e what is in effeat a monopoly .. ,.l In Rea Portland Ta;:icab oo. the Maine Commission established the principle that, "Oertifioates permitting the operation of' motor vehicles tor carrying passengers for hire over regular routes between points servod by steam and electria railWflt.VS should not be granted when the existing ser- 2 vice is reasonable, safe, and a.d.equa.te as required by statute... The 11.!ary- land Oomniesion rendered a T/ery similar decisionlJ! "The Uaryland Oo!I!niseion ha.a adopted the polic7 that when a pttblio utilit1 is i--endering to the public a service reasone.bly adequate0 intelligently and econom~cally operated, that utility will be permitted to earn a fair return on the property dedica\ed to the publie service after p~ent of operating expenses~ ts.xos~ and a reason- able allowance for depreoiationg provided such return can be secured through rates not above the value of the service and the utility will bs protected ~a.inst unnecessary. undu.e, and indiscriminate aonpetit ion. ,,3 The Nevada. Commission is one of' the conm.issions that have :c•ee- ulated motor busses tor some time, duri?Jg which thoy ha?e rendered some unique decisions. The Nevada Commission hes protected both existing rail- ~ess a-~d existing motor bus carriers against competition. In Re: Inter- urban Transit Oo.9 the Commission held that, "A railw~, whioh ie establish- ad and has made a substantial investment, should be protected, and its equip- ment and service should be improved rather than permit oompetition by an automobile se>r'tiae" c 4 In anothe1~ case the auto stage company was ·protected against railroad competitions nAn auto stage compaiw, seeking a permit to l. P. U. llo 1923 A.e page 1274 Modeste v. Oomieotiout Oommissiono Oonn~ SupQ Oto 3r:r'I (97 eonn. 453, ll? Atl. 494) 2o P. u .. Ro 1923 Eo Page 772. Ro: Portland !ra:doab Coa 3.., P. UQ i=?.o 1920 011 Page 972. Re; Dea.no 4o P. u • .Ro 1921 Co Page 4860 Re: Interu.rban Transit Coe operate between 00rtaln points where, there is no railroad service, should notibe limited to operation until such a time as a nearby railroad should see fit to extenrl its service over the stmie :rou.te Pc u. Ro 1917 Ac Page 7000 Re: Troy Auto Oar Co. 2. Po Uo R41 1925 Am Paga 365c Re; Aldrieh. 3Q Pe Uo R., 1921 c. Page 7~4e Scott Vo Latham. Sae also l?. U11 Ra 1919 Fe .!?age 56e Re: Blevins. 4e P. u~ Ro 1920 Bo Paga 246. Re: Gaiser~ 6., Pe u. Ro 1920 Co l?aga 402. He: Demoney~ 6. Po Uo R. 1920 De Page 368e Re: Olarko 24. retused certificates when the petitioner had no funds to finance the enter- 1 p~ise and no defJnita plans for securing them. The policy of Ohio in granting certificates has been well put in the case :ae: McLain. "A certi:f'ieate authorizing tho operation of a motor transportation lino should be granted only when the existing transportation facilities,' including railway as wall as automobile carriers, do not or can- not be mada to meet tha demands of the :pQ.blia oonvenienoa. ,~2 The Rhode Ioland Commission took a similar position in Rei Appl1- oatJ.ons :f'or cert l:fioates to operate jitneys. "The operation ot a aompeting Jitney and street rai1WS¥ service over the same route, does not subserve the wel:taro ot those requiring u.eba.n or suburban tranoportation \Vb.ere the service rendered by the street railway is reasonabl~ adequate for the :reasonable demands of the publio making use of suoh service. "3 The Vermont C~mnission held that the law entitled it to be more than a mere registry for those desiringroertifiaateso 4 In the same case 1t reqtt.ired evidence of the present service~ and how the publie would be benofi,ed by the proposed servicao ~he Washington DS);)artment ot Public Works was upheld b7 the Washington Supreme Court in its pol14y ot protection of adequate service by a monopoly. The Court held thate HThe Wat:!hiugton Department 0£ J?Ublio Works has power to issue a cartifioato to operate a motor bU.s line in territory already eerved9 only after an investigation of existing service and rates and after an order entered directing the present operator to P~ t1o :Ro P@ U. Ro Pe U • Ro p. t10 .a. 1923 Co 1924 :a~ 1922 E. 1923 lo Page 645., Paga l88u Page 6126 Paga 857. Be: Buffalo Jitnoy Owners Associationo Re: Moliaina Bea Applications £or Certificates. 3e~ James~ l ohange i ta schedu.le of rates. and a refusal to obey that order" o Pre- cadence in time 0£ applioatione is not a controlling consideration, al- though it ma¥ be taken into aonsiderQtion? in deoidin,g whioh or two ap- plioants shall ba granted a oertificatea This decision was also upheld by the oou.rt on two different ocoasioneo 2 The Utal'1 Oommission has adopted the policy o~ Branting certi- tloateB to adst:ing oarriez·s to establish automobile feeder systems where routes ar~ not ·served by the ra1lWaQ6 3 In R~; Streepor~ the Gommlssion asserted its oout·ention that, uThe bust interests of the general public are served by the'etabili£ation of public sarvioe agenoies operating in n given £isld ratber than permitting them to be subJeotad to the ru:inoue hazard o.r co1npeti tion°. 4 Tha Comnissio:n refused the certificate in the appliaa.tion of Frost on the g:r.•ou:nd that the existing taxicab and livery oerviee were adequate" and that 'the stage rates would ba higher. 5 All or the states requiring aortitiaates of oomrenienoa and neoeesity9 automaticAJ.ly granted cartitioates to those companies operat- lng in good faith at the time 0£ tl:te passage of the act o They axe sub- Jeot to regulation0 othe:n~1seo in a manner identioal to that of those granted oertifiaates afterwa.rdee l~ P. u~ R$ 1922 E. Peee 335. State ex rel~ United Auto Transp~ Co. Vo DE)parta Of ?ublio WorkSc (--Wash--~ 206 Pae. 21) 2. Po U. R$ 1923 Ea Page 101. State a.,v rel. B. & M. Auto Freight Vo Dapto of PUblic Works~ { .... wash--~ 214 Paa. 164) P. u. R. 1924 D. l?aga ll4e' State ex ralo United Auto Transpc Co. Vtt Dept. of Pub. ~o~kS. (--Wash--, 223 2ao~ 1048} 3" Pc u. Ro 1924 A9 Paga 449. Re; Blue and Gray Bus Line. 4e P. u. Re 1924 Bo' Page 392G Ra: StreeperG 6e Po Uo R~ 1919 Ee Page 660. Re: Frost~ 26. I'.NDDNITY ~ .Qi l:NSURAlJCE Companies operating bus transportation systems are usually ot moderate •ize, especially those just entering the field. With suah small oapitals, an accident resulting in the compa.i:w bei:ng sued 1S likely to re- sult in disaster to the cornpa:D1'1 the public or both. Indemnity bond or 1nsuranoe is a method commonly used for the protection of both. The pro- teotion of the oomp~ is to the interest of the public since it depends upon oontillUity of service. Idaho requires insurance or surety bond. "providing for oompen- sat 1on in the amount of not to exceed $5,ooo.oo for any recovery for per- sonal inJury suffered bJ one person, $10,000.00 for recovery for personal injury suffered b7 all persons injured while being transported in eaoh vehicle eqi.iipped to carry not more than twelve passengerse $15,ooo.oo tor personal injury suffered by all persona injured while being transported in aaah vehicle equipped to oarr, not more than twenty passengers, $20.000.00 for recovery tor personal injury suffered by all persons in~ Jured while bei:ng transported in eaoh vehiole equipped to carry more than twenty passengers"ol Five other states require indemnity insurance or bond in like amounts.2 Virginia requires insurance or surety bond, providing tor com- pensation in the amount of $5,ooo.oo for ~ reoove,..y for personal injury suffered by one person, and $10.000.00 for recovery tor personal 1~~17' suf'fered b~ all persons inJured while being transported in any one 3 accident. Arizona~ Oklahoma, and South Carolina provide for indemnity 1. SectfOn 3. pbapter 1970 Laws of 1925. of Idaho. 2. Oregon, Michlgan, Montana, North Carolina, and Washington0 3. Bu.le 38t Virginia Rules and Begrilations, 1926. 27. insurance or bond in like amounts. Maine and Oonnectiaut provide for insuranoe or bond in the amount of ~~5,000o 00 for any recovery for personal injury suffered by one person, and ~10,000.00 total recovery by all persons in an aooi- dent with a sixteen pa~senger bas or less. and $20,ooo.oo total re- coyery by all persons in an aooident with a bus of more than sixteen passenger capacity. Iowa and Nebraska demand insurance or bond in the amount of $5,000e 00 for an.v one person and total insurance or bond in the a.~ounts of e10,ooo.oo for a bus of less than eight passenger capacit7, $12,000.00 for an eight to twelve passenger bus, $16,ooo.oo for a thirteen to fifteen passe~ger bus, and 05,ooo.oo additional insurance for each additio~al five passenger oapaoity more than a fifteen passenger co.paoi ty bus~ Ohio requires insuranae or bond for the amov..nt of $6,000.00 for atr:f one pereon and a total insurano~ of $12.000cOO for a bus of less than 28. eight passenger capacity. For busses of more than seven passenger oapaoity, $6,ooo.oo additional total insurance is required £or each additional five •t l passenger oapaai Ye Kansas requires an insuranoe 0£ $5,000oOO for ~ one person, and total insurance of $10.000.00 for less than eight passenger oapaoity9 $20,000oOO for eight to twelve passenger capacity. $259 000.00 for th,irteen to eighteen passenger eapaoity9 and $35,000oOO £or nineteen to twenty-four passenger eapaclty. For all busses of more than twentt-four passenger capaoityi $50,ooo.oo total insurance or bond is required. Wisconsin requires ~2,500000 insurance for a:JlY one person. and l. section 260 Ohio Rules and ~agulations. 1925. $5,000.00 total insurance for all passengers in an urban bus. $6vOOO.OO insurance per person is required for any one person in an interurban bus. and $15,000. oo total insurance for all passengers in a bus 01 .. lees than fifteen passenger aapaoity. and $30,000.00 total insuranoe for all pass- engers in a bus of mo.re than fifteen passenger capaoi ty. Arkansas speoifi~a $6,000.00 insurance for any one person and $10,000.00 total insurance £or all passensers in a bus of less than thirteen passenger oapacityo $20,000.00 total insurance is required for thirteen to twenty passenger busses, and $50,000 for all busses of more than twenty passenger oapacit~. North Dakota requires $5,ooo.oo insurance for 8JJ:9' one parson, and $10,000~00 total insurance tor all passengers in a bus 0£ lass than eight passenger capacity~ $12~000000 total insurance or bolld is requ1r- ad fo~ busses of nine to twelva passenger capacity, $15,000.00 tor busses of thirteen to fifteen passenger capaoity~ and $20,ooo~oo for bu.sses ot si%taen to twenty passenger oapaoitye 29. wast Virginia exaots $5,ooo.oo insurance for any one person. and $10,000.oo•total insurance for less ihan eight passenger capacity busses, $15,ooo.oo tor eight to twelve pas~engar oapaoit~9 $25~000.00 for thirteen to twenty passenger oapaoity, $40,0oo.oo for twenty-one to thirty passenger oapao1ty and $50,000.00 for more than thirty passenger capacity busees. Minnesota demands the largest indemnity insuranoe ot an.1 of the states,· requiring $10,000.00 insurance for any one person, and $20,000.00 total insurance for less than thirteen passenger capacity busses9 $60,000.00 for thirteen to twent3 passenger oapacity, $75,ooo.oo for twenty-one to thirty passenger oapaoit1' and (~1001)000.00 for more than thirty passenger 30 .. capacity blisees& Insuranoe is not always required in Illinois. since oorporation,t only, operate b~s lines in that state. lf no insurance is provided, a sworn statement mu.st be made that 1 the operator can Paa' damages. If bond is given it is £or the amount of $20,000~00 and if insurance is given $10,000.00 per vehicle is required. Indiana requires $5,ooo.oo insurance £or arq one passenger and $50,ooo.oo as the total for all passengers without regard to the size ot the buso Rhode Island requires insuranoe of ~500.00 for each passenger and a total of $20 0 000.00 as the maximumo New Hampshire specifies ~500.00 tor eaoh vehicle and $100,00 a.dditional'for aaoh passenger. south Dalo;>ta requires $1.ooOoOO to 'j:oo,000.00 as proportioned by the Boardo Nevada re- quires a bond of $500.00 to $10,000.00 as speeitied by the Oommissione Vermont requires insura.nca ·or bond but does not specify a.n:g particular amount. Pennsylvania leaves bonding to local authorities~ but aor9orations subjaot to the Publia Service Commission Law are exempt from bond. The £aot that twenty-nine of the statos require a bond of some sort shows how important it is consideredo 1£ companies become larger in the future, they mE\V' better provide their own insurance, but until that time aomes we m~ ~eot an i~ortan.t prerequisite to operation to be an insurance polioy or bond. THE PAYMENT .Q!. FEES Al.U 1;AXE§ The one remaining prerequisite is th~ paament of license fees and taxes, but this can better be considered in the chapter on tha ra- glllation of rateso OB.APTER !l!l!RilE TllE REGULATION OF liiES fHE DQUBLCJ OBLIGATION .QE. TBE .BJm. T:i;1AWSP01iTATIOl{ OQMPAJ{J ~he bus transportation CODlPSl'l1' 1s obligated to the public whom it aervea and to the 1xrvestors who supply the capital tor the service. Like the railroad it is obligated to tha public to turnish good tre.nsporta11on serv1oe. but unlike the railroad it is dependent upon the public tor furn- ishing the road upon which the bussea run. The ra1l~oad has a toll charge or expense, beoause of the oost and maintenance ot the right of wq, which la t1xe4 in amount without mu.oh relation to the amount ot trattic, The earnings on this investment 1ti the ~a.se ot the railroad soae to the invest- ors, and is not easilr disU.nga.ished from the investment in operati?JS equip- ment. The obligation of the bu.a •ranaportatio:n compa.u_v to the publio for turniahing the road upon which it operates )11'1' or Dl8J' not be represented by a tax or tee, but it is none the less an obligation. Whether or net this obligatiou should be crystallized in the form ot e. tax will be considered lat er in this cha.pt er. The present ohapter is conoerned with 'the reglllation ot rates or what the public ptqs tor the servioe. It need not be emphasized that the service turnished is closely related to the ooert of furnishing that service. ~he public is iuterested in good service at the lowest possible rate. The public would ba diaeatistiad with supreme servioe at excessive costs. Like- wise it would be dissatisfied with very poor servioe at vary low rates. Thia idea has been well put in an Interstate CClnmeroe Oamnission Report. "Good service and unreasonably low rates are antagonistic ideas; it the latter are 1~a1sted upon, the former is not to be expeote4. fhe public oan never be in the wrong in demanding good aervioe when f'air rates are oonceded; and an enlightened public senUmen1; will never obJaot to fair rates, when it 18 l understood that good servioe is oond1t1oned upon them." Generally speaking there will be some rate which is considered I equitable. That is• 1t satisfies the investor or he would not furnish the I I ~ital, and it satisfies the publ1o tairl1 well or :1.t would not use the I • I service. At some rate or rates there is a balance ot utilities. The rail-, ~cad is said to be tultilling its obligations to the public and to the in- , I Tes•or. A study ot govermnent regulation leads one to conclude that the attai=ient 0£ this equilibrium is le't largely to the oom.panies concerned. I Law• are generally judicial in character empowering the comrdasions to I ! listen io t~e Qomplaints and to investigate the cau.sea thereot and the remedies therefor. For the commissions to do more would be well n1g'h im-, I I po1sible, therefore ~h91 aim at ameliorating evils when the7 are discover- , I ed, or preventing them when they can be forecast. I Rates are usually based upon the cost ot service; the v~lu.e ot aervioe1 or some combination of these two principles. In the case of bu1 transportation the chief element$ ot oost would be operating cos1s; taxee I upon the propert7 as euch and as pa.vment tor the u.se of the road, and the cost ot passenger liability. Since the receipts must cover these cost& or the service will not be furnished. rates based upon ~he cost of serv1oe might be considered as minimum rates. 1. Second Report ot the Interstate Commerce Camnisslon -· page 23. Bates 'based upon the value ot eervico are not so. easilt ~~lained. It wheat is worth twenty centa, a bush~l more in Liverpool 'than in !Tew tork, I one m1gllt sq that the val~e ot tre.nsportat1on from New York to Liver-9001 ie twent7 aants par b-q.shal of wheat.. On the other halld wheat ia pr.oba.blJ twonty cents per bushel '1~eaper in !lew York ,than 1n L1ve:rpool beoause the rate ia t I twenty cents per bll.shel. Value ot t~sportatj.on is an elusive thiJ38 that nniet be treated with aare. Pla~e ut~lities are real, but their exact meas- ' urem~nt is dittioult. ~easurement of the value ot paasenger transportation is st1~1 more ditticu.lt. We do not think ot s. man aa being 1nVen1)y oenta more •aluable in one plaoa th~ ~n ~o't:har. A man m1gb.t rather pq £1£-1 dollars •o ride a short distance than not go at all. A tanner !?la.Y live and die in a community without seeing the rest ot the world when for a. vecy small expenditure he ao~ld travel qtdte widel~l' I.n spite of these d1ff1- 0Q.lt:les in arriving a~ the value ot a service we have e. more or less haq ' r conoept1on ot the value of se::rriae. Re.tee based upon the value of the service might be considered as the maximtvn rates. It the $ervice coats more than the customer believe~ it t$ worth he will not use it. "~g1:ng what the trattio w&il bear'' 1e equally as hazy, as charsi:ag aooording to ya+ue. l,n moe1; reapects it ls quite simila:r to it, si~e the value ot the e~:rv~pe 1$ the muiumn rate that can be charged. ~he general conception •eems to be that there is a rate whioh w1ll 7ield the ~argest returns to the compaDf• ~he rate mq just pay tor the ope:rat- ing expenses on 9ne c01Qmodit1. but at!Other oommod1t~ can beer a rate which will PW mch more thBJ:J. the operating ~xpe:Qses entailed. A:DJ" commodity paying more than t~e opera.'Ci11g ,expenses is valuable, but the greater the amount it will Pa.'3 above operating expenses the better. "Ohargi:ng what the tratt1o will bear" applies oh1etl7 to the tranaportat1on of a great J88l\V oommodltiea. Sinae bua tranepor~ation is aonoerned chietlJ' with I passengers, we are not greatly oonoerned with this principle. Of course if a mot or bus is a.ompeUDg with a railroad :baa.ling various .oormnod! '1e• as weil a.a pasaengera, the motor bus X'a.te intiuenoes greatly what the rail- road can suooesatu.117 charge tor its paaae:cger service~ A~ present the Chief principle of rate making seems to be the coai ~t 'senica plus a :reaeolleble retnrn upon the ! nvestment. 'J!his 1'1WtY mean al- most auJ'ihing; Bailroads tn the i>asi: have not kept a va·1r3 close acooUn.i ~t the bivestm$nt~ J.uch has been lirlested that was listed under operating ex- penses, and the capital Yalue ·ot taall1 ln..,estmen-ts is itself oaloUlated 'upon. i.he income b:om the investa.ent, ra1her 'than upon the original ou.tl&.7• Probably no one principle of rate making was ever used exoluaive11, nor is it desirable that it ehou1d be. ~he transportation comp&DJ' 11 tacect with ma.iw problems 1n rate making, ~d a knowledge of these principles is de .. 1irable. ~he commiasion tupenising rate ma.king should likewise bea:r all ot than in mind. Th& Special oases With whieh the commission OQnCerne itself, demands that' it keep all ot them in mind, or it will wot'k a hm-ship on some oonoermd.. ~ha cost of eerviee pl~s a reasonable return en the investment ~ I should bear a close relation to bus rates, because busses transport pass- engers 0Dl7. They have one rate between two towns because the7 are oon- oernfld with one ncomod1i1''0• 'It shou.ld be oom,pa.ra.tivel;v eas7 'for them to allocate costs. With tha ezper1enc$ in the valuation Of ~ailroad infest- 1$ l?raotioally all bu.sees oezr3 hand baggage tor passengers and some ' car~ mail and e:apress pa()kagas ot snu.~ll 'eizect I 85. me:i;ita, better account should be kept ot: the investments tnade in bus 1 trans- por'batio:n. By" supervision of incorporation. steak issue, aeaounting. and Valuation the 1nV$Stment which is e:xpeoted to make a reasonable return Wil be more det:lni tely known. Likewise supervised accounting will portray the Qperating oos._. The total costs might then be distribut$d much easier than is possible in the case ot railway ra.-.es. ~is 8howe the importance ot the regu.lations considered in this chapter in the ragu.lation o~ ratese Railroads are usuaJ.17 able to give lOw31 .. rates with increased tratf ic, because tixed charges for right ot Wf:J'3 do not proport1onatel.1' in- crease. Fo~ this reason 1t is generally oonoeded that ~a1lroads should be monopC?l1es. This line of reasoning seems to ha'Ve been taken in granting bus transportation conpanies a monopoly. Some states grant a mo:nopolr to l busaes evidently because the3 think they can g!v e low~r rates. Their regu.lations in this matter msu not be Justitied since bu.a operating ex- penses are nnoh nearer in propol:'tion to the amount ot trattio. The t axe,$ for the use of tha road are usuallV proportionate to the traf'f1o, so the bus transportation business does not seem so def!ni,el7 eubJect to inoreas- 2 ing :returns. §..t.AmES ~AVI:IG rrnn!l!i_\TIQN .2l RA.TB ~irt7-tour o~ the thirty-nine states havlng bus regulation em- 3 power their oonmdssions to supervise and fix ~ates. one of the tive not having rate regu.lation,New Jersey, gives its comrniesion supervision of rates 1t some part of the bus route parel.lels on the same street the track 1. In Re: 1U.n8'ls Mounts.in Stage oo. • Docket No. 1667-A.-544, Deaisiou No. 169~; Aug. ll, 1923. The Arizona Oommiss1on~ 2. see !l!ues. 3. The five states which do not regulate rates are Alabama, lda.ho. Jlassaehussetts9 Nebraska, and New Jersey. ot a street railw~. but this amounts to l1t~le or no :t.'tgu.lation since a bQ.s oompar>;f to 1 a.void regu,lation will stay off of the route 1parallel to a ~treet ra.ilwq. 1 .AD interoity'lnls comp~ can well' avoid all rega.latton .. 1 I l I, f Two ot the states which do not have rai e regulation, Alabatna and lda'ho. might be oonsiderod to have indirect regulation of rates by taxation. I I }PWGVer this ls so indirect that altho it affects ratas'it is not raie, I I supervision. The thirt1-fou'r having' rate regu.lation Va'lty grea'tly in ex- tant 0£ tha supervision, as will 'be hown "l::W' \Vhat follows. PPJ.IQ,ATION 1.Qi. CQTIFICATjl 'm n ACOOMfAlill@ n A SOQl>UL~J ~ PRQfOSD RAHS ~e requirement, 'that the application for the oertifiaa.ta ot public eonvenienoe and nacessiti be 1 &QCOm.Pa:nied by a Schedule of pro- posed re.tes, g1vea the oonlt.olsstlon considerable power over rat'e molting. I£ tha rates do not appear ~air and reasonable to the oomr41ssion the,- will certainly turn down the appllcation. For this reason the aompanr is likelJ: to submit about as'reason.a.ble raies as it teals ~t can afford 'to charge. lf there are 8.1J1 di:ssa.t:lstied with a.?f9 rate or rates in the schedule theY' may be obJeoted to by either the oomniasi'on or elr3 interes1ed party. and the aertitioate mau be refused. Wisconsin grants a certificate a.ltllUally to the motor oa.r~ier, if the rates appear reasonable and torplda changes S.n rates during the year that the certificate' is in operation. 2 ~ia seems to be a simple but etf'eotlve form of regulation., 1\9Gllt7-three states require that the application for a cartitiaate be accompanied by a 1. Looal authorities have considerable supe;rtVision in New Jerse1. 2. See Chapte'.!\ ~. L~s of 1916 and Ohapter ~90, Laws -ot 1925 of the ·s~ate ot Wisconsin. 1 36. l iiohedl,\le ot proposed rates. FILING ~ ljAWES SOHEpULl\1 WITH 10 OOMMISSIQI Closely related to the requirement that the application for a certiticate be accompanied with a schedule of rates 1s the re a;t'ee as to what is a fair return on the investment. The Oalitornia Oom- m1111on ruled that, "A re'tttrn of 29.16 percent on the investment in an au- I tomoblle stage equipment is exceselve".1 A petition tor ~ates increase 11 ueus.ll;r granted on the basis of a. atatan.ent of tinanoial cperations anct I Ii tuat1on. In an.other" case bof'ore the Oalitornia Oommbs1on a compmw was permitted to raise the rates 'because they, "are unJ~st, mireaaonable, end ineuttiolent~ ---•"2 ~t aeems reasonable that a bus oor.apa:nv should have lts re.tee so regu.latecl that it wou.ld earn about the same on its invested capital as aD1' other ut111t7 regga.lated. mbe Oalitornia Ocamiss1on ruled that, "Applloant1 tor 1ncrea1e1 in rates tor transportation of persone or p~operty by moto~ vehicles muat .mee~ the same requirements aa to proof e.S 8118' other public a 'tJ:Ull t7". 1'.b.e U•ab Oamniaaion held that :reduced pat;ronage reaul t big in a ~ 1011 for operation, Justified au !mreaae in rates. some companies ha.Ye atteq;Jted to oapUal1ze their certitica.te as a franchise and take it 1n'o ooneideration in ra'e making. A Oal1forn1a oompS07 attempted t.o oap1ial1ze lis b"a:a.ohise at ten thou.sand dollars on one route• but the Ooml:lission made the ra.lins tha~, n~e Oc»mn1a•1onw1ll not allow in a ra'e basis ot anr car- rier M18 amunt £or so called operative r1ght, other than the axpenee aotu- allJ" paid tor the aeour1J>g ot a oertiticate Qf public oonvenienoe and nee- 6 eas1t7"• On the basis ot this decision 1t wotdd not behoove a COtn.Patl1 io l. P. tJ. R. 1921 A. Res Orown Stage Oo. Page 747. 241 P. 11• n. '1924 D~ Re; .Q.oyds Transport at ion Oo. Pase 403. 3. P. 11. R. 1923 :m. R$1 Webb. Page 275. 4. P. 'D',. lte 1922 Bt Be; Engle. l>ase a99. Oo P. n. n~ 1921 A, 1Bei 01-own Stage 0o. l'sge "147 pay veey nu.ah tor the operating rifjht 111 buying out another ~o:mpaiw. ) During an investigation it may aeetn desirable to cause a temporary suspension or reduction 0£ tha existing rate 'sohed.u.le. Thia provision ~ao takes care of the desire for acu.:reion rates. !'Ql1osa statei ha.Tire :resul~tion o:t blis rates can suspend rates it, they tind it neoessaq, I l ba.t only eight states make special provis~on tor so doing. !l'he detal*minat1on o:e ''What are faii- and just rates is largely a question ot Judsnent of the commission. atid the comuiasion is,obl!ged to consider each qu.as,ion u:pon hs own merits. The law of W10ming provides tba.t. "In d~tarmin1ng \Vhat are Just and raa.sonablo 1•a.tes the Oonmissioll mq take 1nto oonsideration dep)."eciatlon ot ylant, ob1olescance ot equip ... ment, apense of operation, p]\Vsical and other values of the plant, s1stem ba.siuess and properties of the public u:Ulity whose rates are under con- aiderat:1.on11. 2 Ill the detarminatio~ of :ttdr and Just rates three atatea give consideration to the kind of service and the effect a on other carriers through unreasonable competition.' The law ot South Dakota reads: "In fl.%- !ng the taritt or' rates to be oharged tor the carrying of pars-ons and/or property the Board shall take into oonsidera.t ion the kind and character of serv1ae to bt performed• the ptlblio neceasity therefor and the effect ot noh ~at'ift and rates upon other transportation agencies, it ml7• and as tar as possible avoid detritnental or unl'easonable OOJllPetition with exist .. ing railroad service or service ~nisbed bu a. motor carrier'' .. 5 Mi'lll':lesota l. See the laws and ragu.latione 1 0f Oal1torn1a, :Nevada. 'E'er11 York, Oregon, Penns11vania, vemont, v1rsin1a, and W70ming. 2. \'lyoming PUblic Utilities Act. section 21. 3• Section ~' Oh.apter 224. S~ssion $SINS ot 1924 ot South Dakota. 1 I 1 and North Dakota have almost identical pr~vision& in their bus le.wSo· It is interesting to know that tha famous "Long, and Short Haul'' pr111ciple ts' appllad to bua rates also. Nine statea authorize its oon- , ( ' aideration. a C$11torn1a might be oons1~el"ed a tenth state in view ot a I 1 I decision made in regard to it. The California Oomlssion he;ld that, *'An I I auto stage compallJ' should not be all~ed to charge a higher looal rate in order to discourage 'ss nuch u possib~e the use of the line by tha public '', tor sho:rt haul unprotitable ~ratfiCrr and to deflect such traffic to Qom-, petito.rs0 ~ Z Another t1J}a ot d1$Cr1m1ne.t:lon was ruled against in the smne decision: ,.~he rates of an auto stage oompan1 should be on a pe.rit7 with its aonpetitors not onl:it to oert~ln selaated poi·nts 4esi;rod by the oompally, bt.tt to' sll points. u Colorado• Penns;vlvaniaw Utah• and iJyom1ng p:rovtde for I ! I 'l :re:para~ion "tor dl,crbJtinatoq rai;es, while Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and I I No,,rth oarolina :Prohibit rebates except upon the autlior1t7 et the do~asiorle To prohibit d1sorirn1natioh seventeen states.z.ule in regard to the granting of :t7ee or reduced transportation, speeit;<11ng the ciroumstancer. under which I I 4 lt is permisd'ble. /J.tho l'a~es .tor chartered p~t1es do rJ.Ot come um.er regulations tor operations between fi~ed termini 1.inder schedule; tbrea ~tatesf Arkansas, Minnesota and ~ew York provide fo~ it. lt might be cona1de;rad as coming I~ l \ under their authorit7 when the 'buseea opeX1"ati11g for chartex-ed parties ere l. Sectton 4, Chapter 186, se~sion.LSW$·of 1925 of ~Um.esota... Section 4, Chapter 91• Sesaton ~aws Qt 1925 Q,f Jrol'th l)$1r.ota., 2. See the taw• and Bagu.lat i~ns ot ?atortana. Nevada, Naw tork, »torth, Dakota.1 Ohio. Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Washi~ton. z. p:_ u. a. 1922 :a, Re; Ba.uohe'tt, page ?05. I 4. .Arka?J.saa, 0$.J.if'o'nta, Oolo;r:ir3.do, Montana. Nevada, Nev.r York, l.rorth Oarolina. 'North Dakota, Ohiot Oragou,. Pennsylvania, s·ou.th Oax•ol'i~ Sbtttn Dak'Ot~ ' Utah, Virginia, Washington, and. Wuoming. alao operating 1Dlder a certificate of public convenience and neoeasit~. WhEm one COJ!W81\V takes over the operations ot another comp8JJ1' 1t mq be desirable to adopt as a whole the sohedule ot rates used bl' the oarriw taken over. Eig'ht states regulate in this matter.1 Ru.le 54 ot the Washington Department of Ptlblio Works gives an approved term of adoption notice and specifies the content and .ru.lee perta1D1ng thereto.2 It raq~irea that th$ :notioe be tiled with the Department and posted tor the benefit of the public. Oommbsiona also have authorit,- over tickets and sale ot tickets. Six atatea exercise this author1tv in prohibiting the sale of t1cket1 by others than the Oompa.1>1 on a commiaeion basis ezce.t>t as approved b1 the I commission. !ale Oalifornia Oommisaion exercised its author1t7 in a little different wa;a. In the oase Res J,louds !i?raziaportaU.on Oom.peJ21' the7 tound, 11 that the persent practice ot selling fifteen-ride oommu.tat1on t1cket1 with- out time limit is unreasonable and that a time limit of th1rt7 dqs tor these tickets is reasonable".4 the Oommbsion$ supervise bus transportation companies in a mmber ot wqs that are not directl7 oonoerned with rate mald:ng• , but are essential to intelligent rate mald.ng. fhe coJJiniss1on must laJOw something o~ the affairs ot the oom,pa:q as well ae the public in order to makG 1. Oal1torn1a. Montana. !forth Dakota, Ohio, Oregon. South Oarolina, Virginia, and Washington. 2. Re'ViSed Rulee adopted March 29, 1923. Page 20 and 21. 3o Montana, :North Dakota, Ohio. South Carolina, Virginia., Washingto~ 4. P. u. R1 1924 Do page 483. equitable deoisions. It must look atter the affairs of ihe co~ant to pre- vent it from bad practices that would later impair 1 ts eervice, or its ab1- 11t7 to provide, cheap transportation and still earn a fair return for the investor.,. The au:dli·ary S'Q.pervieion would include oompa'l'q' reports, aceount- 1ng ;methods and praotices, 1noorporation and oap1tel1zation, and the taxation ot the oompatlJ'• Theee will now be considered in their turn. Probabl.1' 8l1U oommissicnhavil'Jg Ja,r1sdiction over motor bu.sses eo~d o~ ~eoes1it7 torae a ootnpalW to make report•• and be upheld in it bl the ~oa.rts. The eta.tee having par1;:1.cular provision to>;t periodical re- ports mmbel' thi:rt7-two1 without N'ew Jerse1'. 1 'l?he purposes of the reports "Ea.!7• 'bU.t the ohief purpose seams to be in the regulation ot rates and ee:i.'V1eesc2 A f1na.uaieJ. repor• of the COttt>at\Y'I oparatiotm exiables the commiseion to raga.late rates in accordanoe with earuings. fwelva state oommiesions p:resoribe the forms tor repor~s, ens.bl illS them to use them 3 to better ad.Vantage. ln order to make speeial repor1-~ to the comn1ss1on upon de- mand, full reaords must be ke,pt. l:n Oal1torn1a. "!I.be oomiasion requires that the records of the automotive tre:nsportat;lon companies shall \)e kept with autfirkt Norih Daltot~1 Utah., Vermont, and W,om:b1g. boob. ,the entries therein must be support~d bt other reco;rds in· whioh fttll details mu.st ·be shown. nl lows., l'Jontana. New York,. lforth Oarolbaa, and !ror-h Dakota also require that full :records be kept. Washington requ.irae that cer .... ta1n statistical data be kept on tile, 2 Eleven states require that dailJ re- 3 cords ot each ·vehiOl·e' s sehedula· be kept. frobab~ th'ie ia ;requ11.'-ed tor u.se 1n case 0£ the settlement of claims. ~h~ should 'be ot more aervioe in the :re~lo.tion o:t b'a.s service tha:tJ. in the regnlat io:n of rates. saveztal state• 4r require cplioitl;v that tull reports be made to the comission on demand. ~is requirement ma.ks$ it neoassat7 for the compaJ\V to keap full records pending sueh a. demand..· ~e :Rl.\los ·ot the !!Qntana Oamnission state that. HEQeh OOtt\PaJW is ~equ.irad, howeve:t. to keep daily trip ;recox-da Si ving oom- ple~e etatistios and these record; muet 1be placed on Zlle in the ganere:l office of each oompant ao that the Board can at;certain a.t aiw tirAe the number 0£ passengers and (or the amount ot treif#lt and) or the am6unt of 9l!;pr6SS transported and the reYGDlG derived therelrom between afl1 two Or more points -tor aJJ3 period desired"-.' l'ew York p:rc,vides a panalt7 ot one ht:U:sdred dollars for ea.ob and fl'lera day the comp~ shall be "ln detaul. t with respec' to suoh annual l.'e- 6 port, amendment. answer o:r·periodie repo!1'•n• 'ibis should prove qnite 1 .-tfect1ve. l. See ;&age 21 of the A:nnu.ol '.eepo:r:ri of Zb.e Attto Stage and mru.ek Depart- ment ot 'the Oaliforn1a Rai~oad commission tor 1925.' a. Bu.le 96. of the Department of Public wo:rlt• of Wash1nston. 3., Iowa. 1Kansa.s, Jlaine. uont ana, North Daltot s, Ohio, Oklahoma. sou~h Oar'olina, Utah, Virs1nia. Washi:ngton. 4. Oolo~adov Monta:aa, lew York, Obie. Ol'egon. Pennsylvania.; South Dakota. Utah, VIJ'oming. e. Rttle 99• of the Board of Railroad Of;lllmi&sionars of Bonta.ua. s. Bew York PU.blio Service Canmiss1on LSNt Ob.apter 481 Art. III,, Sec. 46. 47. I v ' I , Bate malting on the basts of f~r, :return on the ,investment require• good acooun~i:ng mtlthcds. A uniing a uniform s1stem ot accountt1, 1naugu.rated it since 1923 and ell but North Datrota aince 1925. Ev1den~l3' 11 has been tound necessSJ17 for their pro~er regulation. Probabl.1' the rap1d increase in .the use of motor bus transportation has had something to do with it. North De:rtota, the :t~rst state to presor1be a. umform s1s~an of aeaou.nts tor auto transpor•ation eom.PQ!\ies. has the most extensive ~11tem.3 lt divides tha acoounts into be+,anoe sheet ,accounts, propert1 aud e,qa.ipnent e.oeo'"nts, operatil'lS revem~ fl.0('10un~s, operating expense accounts, and profit and l0$S,at3COU!'lts. fb.a~ give sanaral i~tru.ot!~ne and definiti~"-St and a text tor each aeoountfo\ I The t~t~ contain ,one hundred and fifteen U••• 10 ihat there should be U.ttle tJJtoUble in knoW!Dg 'wb.are ea.eh item belongs. ~8 boold.et contains thirt,y pagee ~n all,, , and should prove good to,1! :ret~ranoe l· Cal1tornla, Oolorado• Oo:n:neoticut, Illinois, ll'ldlana, Iowa, Xansaa, Kaine, Jlj.nns~ota, Jfo:ntan,a, Nevada~ ~ew Torir. North o~oli~ North Daltoia, Ohio, Oregon, PeDDaylvanta, South Dakota, Utah, Vel'mont, Washi:qgto:n, and Wyoming.· , , , 2. Oallfornia, Oomieotiouu, lnd1ana, Maine, Montana, Jlor~b Dakota• Oregon, south DU:o'b&t and washj.n~on. , a. Uniform S~stern ot Aooottnts tor AUto fra.nsportation Companies as pre- ~0111, bed bJ" ~he B9ard ot Raill*Qad Comr.nieeioners, ot North Dakota. 4a. for othar ~tilities oommissione as well as bus operators. Saa.th Dakota also publishes a very satisfactory unifo:r:m system ot accounts and in addttion gives I 1 l a nwnber of forms valuabl~ tor the bus operator~ \ I The Accountants Group ot the American Electric Railway Association approved a ola.ss~.tioation of a.ec'ounts tor bus transportation oompaniee., VerJ I ! similar to one already advocated by the Bus ~ranspo~tat1on Magamina, at its meeting Uond&Ui9 October s. 1925. j ~e ClassU'!oetion le given complete in 2 .Bue Transportation. together with conments by the editor. The decisions of the Nevada 001.mlissto:n in a oompezati Yely raoent oaae have an. important bearing upon the aocou.ntillg p~aoticea of auto t:rsns ... I po:rta.tlon compan1e~tt "fha operating expenses, ot en auto truck l 1ine should. i.nc1udt,Cott1Pansa.tio:n tor the owners at the same rate peid to dri'V,e:t-~ when the OWDe?'I devote their,entire time to d:tiYiM :iru.eke ~d co:nduoting the bu.sines$." "A gasoline ta: should be added to the opera.ti~ expensea ct an at ion on ·Gqu.ipnent whieh has lived its estimated lite in service ~can be charged as an opera ting expenfiJ e. "· «'be Oal ifornia O~ sa ion mled that, '•Interest on investment , in, f'qttipme:nt, b not a p~oper ohFge ~o operat:l.ns ; 4 expensasn. Such ,decisions as these are useful :tor rafere~ce even when tho eta.te commiss1on presori,be.a .a eomplete uniform ACCount~ng· s1stem. The de- o1sion of t~e Oal.itorn1a OOJQmieelon before referi-ed to, m!g~t again be 1. Law$, Rules, R~su.lat1ons. Un1to?m,SJ'&tern ot ACCo'Ql1ts ot sou.th Dakota. !. Bas Transportation, Vol. 4, No. l. Nov, 19261 Page &52. 3., ~~p. u. R. 1924 A. Ginocchio Brothers v. Boards ot Ooun.11' Cormnissioners. Page 302., 4. 1'. U. a. 1922 :a~ Rec Hanohett. · l?age 705. mentioned 1u considera~ion ot 'this qu.fiistion, whe111 e ~ha Oamnieaion would. not allow tor a. Valuation plaoed upon the operative x-iS'ht ln excess ot the act. ual expense et a1~HlUr ing 1t.1 WWel ve states ;require that the accounts of tba oompaay shall be open for ins~ection b1 the commission or lts reprasantati~as.~ This enables !ala laws of seven states ~peoifJ' th~t the oommissiQn JUO\Y rsgt4late a in the matte:1 of Valllation" l'robabl1 all ot the atate$ having cont~ol over rates would ther~b:' be ~iven au~horit;r over valuation. ~he Oalitornsa law does JtOt speoitioall;r grant the oonmies:.ton llCwev to aupe~i;e valuation, but it has aseumed this power nave~thelesse4 The decision ot the ~ev~da Oom- 5 mission 111 regard to depreoiat ion 1$ one of Yalu.at 1014 'l.'he Cal ifo:rnia Oom- t.d.ssion rt1led in regard to depreciation also holding that, ''An allowance Qf £:1fty percent tor tba ann1161 d~:retdation of an auto staga equipmant is e:x- 6 cassive" 3 ,t;u another case the Oa.1.4:f'oJ;"nia Oomi$sion allowf)d twenty percent 7 tor depreotation. UndQubt~d.11 as bu.a ;t"ransportation compautes beooine larger alld monre comm.on there will be mol'c gases 111 ;eege..-rd to valua.tlon. ~U?i:lVI~iq' Q! ptCOm!O&~IO! - OglfilQ.;l'..ION seven states are g~~en authortty tp $Upervise incorporation $.tld ~apttalizatio'1 b1 their etate laws~ btt~ the comniasiQn~ ot Oal1tornia, 1. P. u. a. 1921 A· Rea crown Stage Ct>. Page 741. 2~ Ariaona. Oe.U.for:n!a. Qolo1rado1, ldabo, Neve.ea,, N$W io~k, No1•tb o~olina, Qklaboma, Pemt&N1Vattia, South l')a\to1;a, lhab, aud W,Omi:r:tg, 5. Qolora.do, ll'ld1ana11 Nevada. New 'fort. 1ennsulvan1a, l11;ah, and 'Viseonein. 4. P. tt. :a. 1921 A. Re; Q&TO• Stage Oo. P"18e 747 .. 5. P. 11, a, 1924 A~ GittoeohiO Brothers v. ~oer«s 0£ C~y Oorrmiesionera. Page 102• ' · 6. P+ U. It. 192\ A* Re; Crown Stage Oo. llaga 74?~ ?. P. u. :a.. 1924 D. lie; Llo:ds 5'i-anspo~taU.oa oo~ l?age 483. Illinois and Kansas are the onlJ" onea that are active in the use of that ' l I I authorit7. stock 1eeued in Illinois without authority is voidt 1 and this ) ! l 1 I I I ' is simile.rl7 true in'oallfornia and Ita:nsas.~ California r6quires ,tha per- mission ot the Oo:mm1es1on tor the issue of any evidence of indebtedne•• pa7able at a data more than a 1e~ distante The California Col!ml1•sion ex- \ ercised Us mtthority 1n regard to the eaJ.e price of securities. "~e pr1ce at which the outstanding stock ot an auto etsge QOJ'Jl)atty might be acquired was held not to govern the conanlesion in ti.zing the minimu.m p;rice at wh1oh common stock shQuld be issu.ed;.ta , s~ o~her stat,es ~ave rul~ng; i:ti ,4 reg&J;'d to the emt1111bfances to be put on the prQpert7. Sll.oh p:r:ovisions en- , able' the acmmission to insure that the eolllJ?al11 does not b~eome eo involred that 1t oa:rm.ot render satisfactory se:ryioe. A comp~ with littl$ eneu..'11- braneas aan batter weather a period of stress. Thome states hav~ng. super- so.· via:J.on of inaorporation and oapitalh:ation and those whicp have the same law ~or motor btlsses as other public utilities provide for reorgmlizations and consolidations. It w~uld sa~ that there might be more consolidations take plaoe in, the' bus, tran$portat1on f1$ld in the next few 1ears. Con- solidations Qf companies operati!lg from a large city seem teaeible. !Jlhera is some doubt as to consolidations ot lines similar to our trans-continental railroads sinae busses do not own their own,roadwau and fo~ this reason do not operate under conditions ot 1ncre8.$1ng returns. 'Phe very nature ot the < bus ba.siness at present does not point to such consolidat~ons although. there ' are soma very lo:ng ro~tes in opera1io~. Some think that eventually busses l. Oalitornia~ Illinois, Indiana.~ ttansas, New York. l?enns111van1a. and :North D,almta. . 2~ Calitorllla Law, Seetion 6. Kansas '.allla 33 and Statutes &G-126, 1~2~. 3. P. U. a. 1922 :$. Re: Star Auto siege Oo. ;e,age 491. 4~ Montana. Oklahoma, South Oarolina, Virginia, Washingi;on and Wisconsin. will be operated bl' the railroads as a unit olosel~ related to their railroad service. 1 The transfer o~ operating rights is alosel.7 related to reorgan- ize.tion and consolidation. The usual condition ot the granting ot a certi- t1ca1:e 1e that arJ'8 transfer ot it ln the future 1S to have the app~ovaJ. ot the oo:mm1ss1on. !l?hia applies to lea$irtg as well as sale. Twent7 states 2 regala'e in th:ls mai1er. ln Oalitorma, "An application tor permission to operate ~hrougb. service under two nr more certitioatea held b,- the eame individual, oopartnersh1p, or oonp8Jl1' operat 1238 mot or vehicle line should be denied unless it is shoWJ.l that public ooJ.Nenience and necessity requires 3 the S.na.u.gura.t1on ot this service". ~he 1azea here to be eonsidered are those in addition to the regular propert7 'taxes. They are tu:es or fees on the motor bus common carriers as such. The purpose of such taxes is tor regulation. The de- sire has been 'So ma.'ke the busses pay tor the wear and tear on the road and place them, at the same time on a. more equitable baaie of ooJJ'4)etit1on with the railroacls. !fb.e railroad; as competitors have been the first to insist and the most insisten' that the busses be taxed for the purpose of repa.~ring the damage done to h1ghwa.ya. 4 'lhe railroads in general have felt that the7 were 'being submitted to unfair compet1 U.on because the bus i. :Report of Speoial commit1ee IV ot the Ohamber of Commerce of the u. s. liov. 1924. 2. Arlzolla., Oal1forn1$, lndiaxta, Iowa. X.anaas, Himeso1a., Montan.a, Borth Oaroll:na, North Dakota, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma.. Oregon, Pennsylvania, Bhode Island, south Oal"olina, South Dakota, Virginia. Washington, tmi West Virginia. z. P. u. :a. 1923 A. Re: Oal1:torn1a Transit Ool'l{P~, Page 226. 4. Report ot Oommittee on Motor Bus operation of AJnerioan ASsoo1at1on ot ~a&senger ~rattio otfioers, ot oc. 2, 1924. Pages 99-149. 51. unlike uhe railroad had no in.vestment in permanent his'hWS\9'• ~he bus did not have to make a toll charge upon passengers so long as no special taxes were levi•d u.pon theme It has been admitted tor some time that 1azes ot this sort were tair1 but Just what kind was not eas7 to decide. At the present time we have a wide varietv in the various states. None ot than make a:tf8' serious atteJJl)t to exactl.1 equalize the toll oharge of the railroads. rTha't the user of the service p~s eventually, only in so tar as he 119 a taxpayer,1 is quite evident. F. :a. Fageol, a prominent bus manufacturer advocates a gasoline tax as the most fair means, it 1 t were made sutf'ioiently high to l mai.ntain the higb.wqs. Jlr. Fageol also quite appropr1atel1' suggests that the monq raised should go into the highwqs inaiead of being oonsumad bN its own overhead. !r. H. MacDonald, Oh1et ot the bureau ot public roads, shows that the bus operator pays more per ton for the use ot the road than do the railroads for the upkeep ot ~rack and right ot weq. 2 Since Ur. JilaODonald doee not give full consideration ot the railroad's investment in right of way, his figures cannot be ttaed to prove that the railroads and the bu.sees are opera.ting on an equitable basis as yet. ~e tees vary greail1 in amount and ,in form. !J?hey mq be olassit1ed as Extra Licenses, Oapacit7 faxes measured by tonnage and seat- ing capaoit7, Gross Income ~axes, aud M~leage Taxes, Those combinations pt capacitJ' and m1lease taxes are o;J.aH1t1ed &$ oapaoit1" ta:es. ?lont~ and South Da'kota have two,.. kinds of taxes in u.ae. l. !he Huture ot the Mot or Bus, b7 Wat ional Automobile Chamber ot commerce. for d1soussion of Gasoline Taxes, see State Gasoline !axes b~ Edmund P. Learned, Bulletin of ~he Univers1t~ of xansas1 Ra'tllan1st1o 5tudie1, Vol. 3, No. 4. a. Journal of Land and PUblic Utilitv Eeonom1oa, October 1926. :mxtra licanse feea ara for the £1li:og of applications tor oerti- t1cates of convenience and necessity. for appl~oat1ons for transfer of certiticates, for dupl1oates of certifioa~~s, and tor applications to mo~tgage eertitioates. Cal1torllia has a tiling tee paid only with the application for carti£1cate. Minnesota has an application tee tor certi- ticates, transfer of certifica,es and tor dunl1cate certificates. Montana 'has a tee tor duplicate certificates. au.thoritJ to mortgage oertificatee, and for duplicates ot official. receipts. Oregon has a fee of $10.00 per vehicle per year. South DakOta has au application £ee tor a certificate of tlO•OO. Washington has an applioat!on ~ee, a transta~ tea. a mortgage tao, and a duplicate cert1t1ca'e tee. The tees tor applicat~cn for certitioate vars frop:J $10.00 to $50.00. The transfer tees Var'3 from $5.00 to $26.00. ' ' The J!ortgsge tees Va:£7 trom $3.00 io $5.oo. Duplicate certiticate teee are $2.60 and $3.oo. Montana. charges $1.00 tor otticial reoeipt. Eleven stat.es have capac1t7 taxes measured by seating capacit1. Arizona. Maryland" V1~ginia and West Virginia have this tax on the basis l of mileage. In these e•ates the ta: •ar4es from oue t1f~ieth of a oent per paeee:nger mile to one saventh ot a cen~ per passenge~ mil~, allowance be ins made in llar,.la.ud tor the weight of the vehicle 8lld whether it has pneumatic tires or not. at those states taxing acQording to seating oapacit~ only, Alabama has bN tar the highest taxes, and Montana the lowest. Alabama. ohargee $100.00 or fl50.00 tor mwth11J8 up to a tive seated vehiole and $10.00 per seat tor extra seats. Montana charges $8.00 tor a five pass- enger vehicle, $9. 00 for a aiz to ten pa.esengeJ:t vehicle• and 310.00 for an ' l. Alabama, Arifiona, xanaas, Kentuo'.k:/, lfa.'Q'landt Montam, ?forth Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina.. Virginia, and West Virginia. eleven to twenty passenger veh1ola. lowa and Michigan ha.ve capacitJ taxes m.eaaured by the rated tonnage. Iowa reqaires -f ot one oent per ton mile ot travel tor pnau- niat io tires, aud t of one cent par ton mile of travel for so~id tires. 1Uch1gan has a tax of $1. 00 for ea.Ch one lnUldred pounds ot weight. Oo:a.ueoticu.t, Idaho, llavade, North Carolina, South Dakota, a:nd Washington lGVJ' a tax on motor btts oparatoi•s on the basi$ ot ~oes in- come. Washington charges only one percent -while North Otll"olina chargee five per<:ent. South Dakota charges three percent for p;n~atio Urea and four percent tor other tires. All 0£ these taxas wit~ tha exception of Washingto11 are evidently intended to contribute considerable sums toward• the .,repair of the roads damaged by the busseeo Oklahoma end Utah have a ·special ·kind of tax. Oklahoma levies one fifth ot a cent per mile of actual travel by a motor bus. Utah levies a tax oi tw-0 sud one half mills par pasoenger mile for paase?Jgers cactuall.1' earried.8 It 1s tor this reason that the1 have been ~armed a1leage -Case•· Three states specit1 that there ahall be no other local tues l except Ad Valorem. aeavy local ta.'les levied in addition to the s~ate ta:e$ prasoribed by some of the states would indeed inalte a oause tor gri eva.nce. sixteen states make pro~ision fQr the dispositton ~t the tax mon&J• requiring that 'it be put into a road fu~d attar PS1"ing ~he expense'i ot administration and etJtorcemant. 2 !Pld.s helps to insure that the money will be wisely epent for the benefit ot those bearing the burden.' J.. Borth Carolina., Ohio• and Virginia.1 2. Idaho, Iowa. Kentu.Ck;V, Mar,land, lU.chtgan., N..Wada, Borth Oarol1nao North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Oarolinao South Da'kota, Utah, V1rg1l'lia, and Washington. OHAP.rER FOUR THE REGULATION OF SERVICE From the public point of view the service rendered by motor bus lines 111 furnishing a means of travel is the reason tor their existence. State regllla.t1on ot motor bus transportation is undertaken chiefly in the · interest of bet'ter service tor the public. The fact that so ma?W' states now have bus transportation regulation indioates that it is generally be- lieved that regu.lation is necessary for the best ot service. lt more than one company is in operation over a route, competition with its rate cut- ting ml\V result in interior aervioe.l The bus company D28J' provide well appearing busses and at the same time neglect other less obvious,but Just as essential things requisite of good service. If one large compa1J1' has a monopoly, there exists the temptation to skimp on the service in order to show a better rate of earnings on the investment. Most states are careful no~ to permit more operators on a route than the route can support and oontintle to render good serviee. 2 AnOther consideration prompting reg11la- tion of service is the relation of the bus compan, to the rest ot the traveling public not using their service. It is true that state legis- lative regulation for bus sel'Vice mu.st be limited to general provisions, but the need tor such ~egu.lation is very evident. Th1G is a dl\V of travel and the public demands not only reliable service but also fairly frequent service~ Since the legislatures cannot control directly• the~ must en- trust the regulation to administrative commissions. 1. P. u. :a. 1924 A. Page 467. Re: !lingg.s Mountain Stage co. 2. P. u. R. 1922 A. Page &OO. Re: Union Auto Transportation Co. All of the thirt7-n1ne stat es having bus regal at ion, with the exception ot Alabama, regu.late servioe. Alabama exercises control only through its taxil38 powe~, and bJ'i li~enaing 4r1ve~s ot bussee. To this extent, all states licensing drivers, might be said to regulate service. New Jersey regala,es busses whose route parallel$ on tbQ •ame street the track ot an electria railw8'°• Since so tsw busses.operate on this type ot route• wa are not part:lcularl~ in~erested in the regu.lations of' New Jersey. The commission first exercises supervis~on ova~ servioe when the cou:pan;r seeking a certificate ot Co?lVenienoe and necessit~ tiles a description of the equipment to be used. Fourteen states require that a descr1~•1on ot equipment be tiled. 1 Thi$ applies to companies that au'o~tically acquired a certittoate because ot operation previous to the paSS$8e of :the law. I L I ADEQUA~J EmJI;PU@ Eqt\~pment must be adequ~te and oompl1' with all motor vehicle laws. Twenty-two ot the states resu.late speoitically in regard to the 2 equipment. one s-Cate, Iowa, requires tha' no vehicle be put lnto oper- 3 at1on until an "E~1pment Oertificate" has been ~eoured from the Board. 1. Minnesota. Montana.. Nor1h Carolina, North Dakota. Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsyl~ania~ South Carolina, South Uakota. Vermont, VirSinia, west Virginia, and Washington. 2. Arizona, Arkansas, California. Ooloradof Connecticut. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, lfaryland• Miohigan, Montana, New York, Horth Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wast Viriinia, and wsroming. 3. Rule 10, Iowa Rll.les and Regiilat1ons, 1926. I 66. 6'1. Eight aiates regulate in regard. to reserve e ukansas, Oalltom1a. Idaho, Jowao Rauaas. laineo Jl1oh1gau, Montana, Borth Dakota, Ohio• Oregoii, and Wes~ V1rstnia~ s. Alabama. ukansastt Oalitorn1a, Jdaho• lowat Xan.eas, Michigan. Jlimieso~a, ltoniana, Nor~h Dakota. Ohio. Ol(Labomei, Oregon, Sou.th Carolina, Utah. V1ts1u1a• Washmstoll, and West V11'ginia. 9. llul.e 17 ot the blee and Regtilat10l:ll ot .Arkansas. (N .• B. The grammatical error ia in the original text.) Directly dependeni upon the driver is his manner ot driv 1ng. I J. I i ~ " t . 1 Reckless cll'iv~r.ag ts an evil that ais~een states att9JI1>t t;o curb. ~· i t ~ f aohedqle should be such "that the dr1VeJ' does not need to be reckless in ) l 1 t his operation of the bus. Idaho. l'orth Carolina. Ohio~ and Utah ha'lte rules ; I V l requiring driver; to s+ow down tor c\U"'f es, bridges, a.net other cle:ngeroua i t ' ~ ! places. ldabo, J.U.chigan, and Borth Carolina :rule that there shall be no rao il>B• Ni:a.eteen states require 'hat the bus be brought to a. oomplete 1 1 I stop before croasiitg ratlroad traoks. 2 Arkansas requires that the driver be courteous to and consider- , 3 ' ' ate ~t the i~aveling public. E18ht states mle that the driver shall not ' ' ' l 4 dittu.rb the peace or make 8'1J9 mmecessary no11e in •o11a1 ting passengers. I i ' Bew Baq>shire, Qh~o, and west Virslnia 1orbid talking by the driver While ' driViJlS• ~ent7-s ix states require that drivers report accidents in- , I 5 volv~ng ~fi>H o,f lite. Rule ,10 ot the South Dakota. Board provides the ' ' \ tpl:lowi:ng reSQ.lat101u "Aoc1dents arising trom, or in comieot:lo:n with the l ' opera.t1on ot motor vehicles used ln the trsnsportation of' ,persona or pro- , ' l ' I pert7 resulting in a'll8 ix.JUl'J 10 arq person. or in damage to a:tJ:I' property 65. exoeeding the sum of fittu dollars ($SO.OO); 1 &hall be :in.nadiatel.1' reported · i. Alabama,'. Arkansas, Maryland, Michigan,, Jlilmesota. llo:ntaua, Jtebraska1 !forth oar.olim, North Dakota, Ohio. anode Island, south Oarollna, tJ'tab.t V.1rg1ma. Washington. 'and 1We1t Vh-stnia.. ' 2. .Arkalllas, lllinoist Kansas, Jlichigau, Nebraska., ltevada, Bew Hampshire. Rew torlt, Borth Dallota. Ohio, &klahoma. Oregon, P9mlSJ"1Van1a, llhode , l•land, south Oarolina, sou.th Da'kOte., Utah~ Vermont, and West Vtrsinia. s. RU.le 18 ot the Arkansas ~on:m1sston. · · , 4-. Montana, Bew B&lll>shire, Borth Dakota. ibode Island, Sou th Carolina, , Vermont. Virginia., and Washi~on. 1 s. Alabama• .t.rkanaas, Idaho. Indiana, Iowa, itansa.$1 Xentuol11'1 lf&7lanct, M1ch1gau., Minnesota,. Montana,· Bew Hampehire, !few York, Worth Ds,ltota. Ohio. Oklahoma. Oregon, Penns7lva:ra1e; south ca)!Ol~na, SOU.-th Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wash1ttgton, Wesat Virginia, and W10min8• t 66. to the Board ot Railroad Oor.arn1aa1oners. Pierre, SOU.th Dakota, in writing. Such reports wist be plainl.1' iJPGWri tten on one side of the paper onl1 md shall set terth: le The tims and place ot the acc!dsnt. · ,2. 1 Tha names and add.resses of the owners of a11.vehiclaa involved. I 3. The·nsmsp el2d addreesea ot the drivers or operators ot all vehicles involved~ 4 •. The state license llUmber, make, and t1Pe ot ell· ;vehicles 1molved.. s~ The m:anber of passengers,. 1f &n7t in each of tha vehicles involved. 6. The names, and addresses ot per- e. A tu.ll and acmplete repor,t of the accident; oansei> part1 or parties re- i 1 ) I ;ponaible, it SD1'1 oondition ot roads, wea~her conditions; speed ot vehicles involved, eto. 111 The reqa.irement that accidents be reported is on.a ot the 2 earli~st ~egttlatione made tor the eupervision Qt bus operations. Equipment is !!lade for a maximum load, end oyerloa.ding anilal'JBera the eate,tJ' ot passengers. lnterurban buese~ are not likely to overload as ma.oh as o1ty bttsseoo ooimect1cut requires that a s1sn be placed at the I J 5 entJ:ance 1nd1aa.ting the oapaoit~ of the bu.s. ~J.s tends to shift the re- 4 spons,ibillty to the passengers. Twent1'-three states prohibit ovarloa~111g. !l!We:nt¥-O!le ot the statee proh1~111 ou.t side pa.$ee:ngers. Bligh\ etatea rule 5 in regard to the amount ,of baggage. and thirteen proh1b1~ p:rotrudi:og l. Bul(t 10 ot the Rules and Resulat tons ot south Dakota. 2. P. u. a~ 1916 Fe Page 1063. a. Rule 29 Qt the atiles and .Regttlat:lqns ot bo:rmec;t1cttt. 4. Oal~ornta, ll~inoi$., Xans;as, Xel\tu~k7· Maine, Jb.17la:w11 U:10higa:n, •ontal!a, Nebraska, Bew Hanpshire•· No~th ))ala>ta• Ohio, Oklaboma• Oregon, Pennaylvanta, south paro~1n~, sou.th Daltota, Utah, Vermon.1', Virinsia. W~hil'Jgto:n. weet V1~nia. and Wili!Qons:ln. o. Jl():niaua, Borth Oarolina, Borth Dako~8' Oh~o, Oregon, sou1ih Oaroljna, Virginia, and Washington. 67. 1 2 baggage. Seven states torbld trailers behind busseGe .Eleven 1tatee 8 forbid 41sor1minat1011 between passengers when the load :1s being made up. Fifteen state• forbid the oa:r27ing ot explosives or other dangerous mater- 4 lals ~ paasenger vehicles. A pasae:nge:r bus is intemed tor the trans .. portat1on of passa~ers. and should not be loaded •1th SJl7 dangerous mater-o 1al, it the satet7 of the paasengera is 'o be regarded. The requirement that lftlasea d.ra up to the curb tor loading 1s found i:n several ot the etatee. Provision tor the health ot the drivers is quite essential to i the satet,. ot passenge~s. ~elve states have rules in .regard to this • .Rllle 69 of Washington provides, "BO auto transportation compa>l1' owning, oontroll1ng, or operatiJ:lS or mauagins B1J:8 motor Teh1cle used. in the transportation ot persons or propert7. shall oanse or allow 8tJ:8' driver or operator of such motor vehicle to work as a driver or operator fox- more th.all a iaax:tmwn of ten (10) driving hovs in a1J:8 twenty-tour (24) hour ;period and suoh driver or operator shall ha•e at leas~ ei-t ( 8) con- aecu:U•e hours• rest in each twent7-teur (24) hour period". In a hearing before the Oa11to:rnia 0(1J'¢Qiss1on 1t was :ra.led that no 1nd1Vidual ehoul4 drive rega.larl7 and continuousl.1' tor a distance ot approximately five- 1. oau.tonia, Illinois. Iowa. Kansas, Montana. North Carolina, '.North Dakoia, Oh1o, Oklahoma, Ortson. So'Qth Oarolina.1 Virginia. and West Virgina. · 2. Oal1forma, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, sou.th Oaol1na, Vlaah~:ogton, and West Virgillia. s. Oalitorn1a, Illinois. Xa:n.sas, Montana. lfor'h Dakota, Ohio, Oklatioma. Oregon. Virginia, Washins.e bas compaJJ1'• l'ineteen states have ra.lea 1n regard to 1. P. U. B. 1922 O. Page 474. Motor Oarr!ers Association v. MoOormick Steamshlp Line. , 2. Oalitonia.• Iowa, Kansas, Xantu.oq,, Jlaine, Ma.r,lend. M1chigan, Minnesota. Mo:utaaa, llorth DalrOta, Ohio. Oldahoma. O:ngon, south Carolina, Virginia, WashiDgton, west Vtre;b1la. and l'1JOmiDSQ a. Montana. l!ew tork; llor1-h Carolina, North Dakota. Ohio, Oklahoma, lthode Islandv south oa:ro11na. Ve:ftilont, Virginia. washillgton. Oregon, and \t'ast Virginia. interl'Uptione of service.1 Ord.1naril1 interruptions that are UllaVoidable ' I muat be reported to the comm1ss1on. North Carolina provides that the oom- mission mq order au.•pend.on of service when the aondiU.on ct 1he higbwqs 2 dell18lld it. !L'h~ Washington Depar~ment denied an app11oation for a cert1- tioa.te because the applicant had total.11' disregarded the rights of the public i I I ., 1 ' ' 3 iniernptions ot service. In grantins a certificate Ar1aom. gave consider .. ' ation to th$ neoeasit1 ot operat1118 auto stages during all kinds ot weather 4 1U1der all conditions. The leVada OomQl1as1on held that "~e practice of tele:phoni»g ahead to a stage sia.tion to inquire it there would be passengers 1s not a :teasible wa;y of saf'eguard:J.ng the public serve4 b7 a motor vehicle route".~ ln Be; Whit a 5ta.r Linet the Montana Oamn1sdon rendered the de- oision that: "!l!le obligation ot a motor transportation compaxa.v which ha• I prof eas~d public aenice ;ls to aerve at 81J1 and all events, aota ot God alone ezcepted.1 and the obliga.1;1011 implies not only regular arrivals and departures but dependable transportation oontinuo'Q.slJ' ot~e:red and not S\t.bjeot to th~ caprice of ma:oase.rs or the condition ot the carrier's f'1nancea". 6 Nothing is gained b1' instituti:ag a servloe and then d:lscont1nuing it after fin411'.lg it u:riprofitable, and it so~etimes results in harm to the COlJiletitors. Bore thought lhould be given b9 operators proposi:ag service so that there 1. Oolm.eaticu:c, Iowa, Xansas. Plaine. 11al7land. '4ich1gan, Mims.esote.~ :Montana. :New Rm:qpehire. l'orth 10aroU.nat North Dakota, Qb.i-o. Oregon, Rhode Island, South Otu"oli~ Vtahti Virg1aia, Washington. and West Virginia. , , 2. Seotion G (:t) of the Bus Regu.lation Law ot Morth Oarolina. a. P. tJ. Ii.-. 1921 '.E. Page 842. In Rei Xn.euhma.D. 4. P. U. R. 1922 A. Pago &ll-. Re1 '5'n1on AU.to ~rausporta.tion OO»i>a.ti:T• 5. P. tr. Rt 1923 A. Paga 449. REU A.m.eraon Bl'o• 6. P. u. n. , 1924 a. Page 1923. 'Will ~ot need io be so man1 diacontimied services. S$venteon states rule l 1n regard 'to the diseont inuanoe 0£ service. Mo Qt of them require hearings before 1he connnissien. Bu.le 61 ot the Ohio ODlltmiasion st•tes that, "No motor transportation eomp8D1' shall disoont:tme the service called tor under its oert1ticate and time aohedllle filed the~eunder, without first having given to the Oommisslon am to the pu.blio at least 'ten dqs• notice in w:riU.ng of the intention to disoont1me au.ch servica, and having sacu.:red f.fiom the aomm1ssion perm1ss1on so to do"· .Regular and dependable service 4epeue upen subatitu~ions Qt amerseJ101' vehicle1h ~en states provide tor 2 , nbslituU.on$. Usual.17 &\JCh su,'bstitut:l.ons ?mlSt be reported. It often happens that oon4it1ons of the road necessitate do·tours, ~her shou.14 be avoided as mu.oh as possible. l>u.t there are times when it is absolutel7 neoesearsr. Nine siates provt4a for detours, usuall.7 reqa.ir1ng that the~ be :repo:rt.ed to the Oomm!ss1on1 a.a to their cause and probable 3 duration. ~he Oal1torn1a -Oolimlesion retueed to paxmit a. cmnpa.t1y to include in its ta.rift a provieo for detours. where such detours we:re to be made at the discretion of the drivers w1 th no set limit as to their extent. 4 A iud.qUe raBQlat ion, appl:t1238 to the relations between competing oarriei-s., f(Jr the co:rtVen1ence of peiesengws when a bus is disabled. is toun4 6 l in six sta:tes. mh.:11 provision :tequi~es the driver of a vehicle to stop on l• .Arlmnsas, Illinois, Xausas, Xenta.olQT, Uartlam, ltinnesota, Montana. liorth Dakota, Ohio• Olflahoma, Oregon. South Oarollna. tl'tah., Vermont, Virginia, Washington. \Vest Virginia. 2. XJtd.1aua, Kansas, Rentuclq', lia.l"8lam, ltichisan, ltonte.na.. Borth Dakota, Oh~o. South Carolina. West V1rginiao 3. Jltka'11$aa• Comi~otiout, 10\vao MiohlSa?lt Minnesota, Ohio, SOU.th Carolina, Uiah. aud West Virginia. 4• P. u. a. 1918 &. Page 795. Jn Re: xseondido ~mok Liue. &. see the regzilatlons of Montana, Dor-Cb :Dakota. Ohio, South Carolina, Vi~ginia, and wash1ngt;ou. Signal and ~eoeive passenger• from a disabled vehicle to the extent of ita 1 unoooupied. C&nJ'ill8 cape.city. ~his necessitates the GOH!)enss.t·ion ot the f ' / I l ) ! 1., carrier taking ,th" passengers ~ the Cm"rier ope:rati:ag the disabled 'bus. ' I I 1 bl\Ch a. J-eqtii.ranent SllggeaiiG that more than one carrier over a given route f J. I 1 I / t ie sometimes daairableo ' I In orde:r that 'Ghe p~'blic mag know bf, tlte f'aciJ.Uies ottered b7 the I lm.sses it is ~eceasary to have f.ilOhedul(;)s ot route; and of the tilne of ar:riva.l and departure ot vehicle•• .As before men~loned there must be some reguJ.arit1 I I I ot rou.1e and time U" the public 'is to use tha fac1litiea ottered'. BOME~U'L]JQ A usual ~equ1r~ent tor a certificate of convenience and neoessit1 . is ~hat the applioatiou be accompanied 'by a m~ or sketch o:t the proposed routef giving the exac1 length of the :rcni~e and i?4~G1~adiate portions ot lto 2 ~his map or $ket@ is usually .requi:red to a:tiow oo~et1DIJ transportation e;vs~E1ns, including railroao.s, to-,: the in:fo:rmation of the commistion. By ''-:rtu.e of ~he pows:r of appwvai. of the conmtss4.ou• the 'carrier is forced to ~ the route in com*orm:tt;y with the wishes 0£ the commission. !hUSt the oomniesion ma, 1.4'aquir~• a conplete change in z-oute dus to com,petitive lines ~der eonaideratio~. 6 Massaoh~setts, Jlimiasotflt Penns7~vau1a, and South Daltota ~equire that the ~out~ be appro~ed by the Divi~iou of Hietl- ways or the Cotm?d,seioner of Highwa.ya. Twelve states require ~hat proposed 1, Rule 1:4 ot ~he Waehi1181or-i Depar~ment is a good. example. 2. .Arizona, A~ka.Dtas, Calitorn;ta, lllino:le, Iowa, it9llaa$, Kentuo~, :Maine, ~land, J488saohusetia;. lt1ohlgan. Mbmesota, :Montana. btorth Oarol1na, North Dakota, Ohio• Oklehoma; Penn$ylvania_ Sou,_h Oarolina, Sou.th Dakota, tfta.bt Vermont, Virginia, Wa$hington. West Virginia, and Wisoonsi~ Bhode Island ma,. presertbe routes. f a. see Rule l4 ot Weai V1rslnia. 1 j Ohangea 11& :toute be tiled with and appro'Ved b7' the oommis11on. Several states require that daill' racor4s be kept of eaoh vehicle's schedule, evldently for :rGferenoe purposes :tn ca.s~ of alaima on 1naw•au.c1.t policies of the COl?fPa.l\V'• A.ri~ona., Oonneet1out, Slld ntontana require that rout.as be ' ' pnblished 1 aud joste~ ~¢.>o~e the inauguration or cha.~ge of route~ All suoh I \ I 1' reg-al~t:tons are aot very bu.:rde?tsome, and they m~ be veey u.se~l. UU. aggpyp_a I I I Adequaq ot eervlce 1s alo$el1 related to the time sohedul"s of b'Q.s ,compan1eso ~1le proposed time sdheW.le is given oonsidaration $.n the hear1~ ot a.ppl~cat1Qns fo7 der"t;iftcat$S• mwenty ... nine etates reQ.llire tha• the proposed time schedule be filed with tha applioa:Uon. 2 When tho oerti- f'icate is granted on the bads ot t-be' time t$.ble; 110 change osn l)a made thare1n witbout the eonaent and approv81 ot the comnission. fhus the twenty-nine s ta.tes can ve-ey wall order a eh~e 1n the time scl1edula if thai7 see tit. Arka?lsa.s and lorth OaroU.na ba.ve provisiona tori alternating p el."i.ods ot a.a .. 3 parture for eompet1%18 l!nes. ~laud pl:"ovides that busses be Qpetated in 4 :rotetion -0t pe~it :a.umbers. · All of the states require that \he time 'Cable published be adhe:red to. 1.,.. 1111no1a., indiana, A!artl~ laine, !liold.gan, Ohio, Olrl.aboma. south Carolina, Utah. varment, WashinS1;o11,i and west V'irginia. 2. .Arizona, Arkansas, OaJ.ifo:rnia, Illinois. .J.owa, Xanaas9 !'.e:ntuc]t7, Maine• Ma.ey;Land~ lti.chigant 1Jixm.esota., f.tonta:rm, Nevada; New Bampshiret New ?ork9 Borth OarplPa,, North Dakota~ Ohio• Ok'la.homa, Oregon, pennstlVania, Sou.th Oarollna, South Daknta, Utoh. Vamont, Virginia, Washington, West Virgin!a.o and Wiscondnu :i., Belle 21 -ot .Arka!Ulas, and page is 011 the Rules ot Worth OaJtol~a. 4. Speeial Ru.le 2 of 11ar;rland. 5. Iowa, Montana, Nevada~ North Dako'ts, Ohio, orego~ South O~olina., V4rgin!a,, and: Washingto:no l eoribed bf Oregon is ta1rlt representative ot this requirement. !ehe oon-tent ot the time schedule is prescribed in l1JaD1' states. Sixteen ata,es require that the t Sma 0£ a.JTi val at and departure :trom each 1; erminal ba 2 giTen. Thirteen states require that the t!me ot departure be giVEtn for 5 etations be~waen teftninals. Eigb.1 states require points on route where .. service is noi rendered to be shown and reason given :tor not giving eerv1oe. Sixteen ot the states require that the time •Chedules a.a t1led with the com- mi seion, be pablished and posted in bu.a terminals and conspiouotis places, before the 1ne.ugw.-ation ot o?- change in t11t1e. 5 1'he 11egalation ot Ume and route was one ot the first replat1ons undertaken by oommiedons. fhe Utah oomlasion hel4 in 1919 that, "Per- mission caim.ot be granted tor the operation ot a public stage line, Without Um1tat1on as to the time ot arrival or departure at 81XJ1 poin1;, and without 6 $p90if'ied termini". fhe pea.s7lvania Commission rendered an important de- cision in the same 7earo "The issuance ot a certificate ot public conven- ience tor the Operation ot au:tobusses between two designated points oTer a ' named route includes the rig'ht to ope:rate between intermediate pointe on the designated route, and the refusal to permit competitor to operate ~etween the tormi:ni include$ the denial ot the right to operate between 1n1ertned1ate 1. Page 9 ot the ll'Clles ad ltegQlations governing tarltts and schedules. 2. Indiana, Iowa. Xentu.cq, Uabte, JH.chlpn. Monta:na, l'evada. North Dakoia, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Utaht Veinnont, Virginia, Waehillgton, and Wisoonain. a. Iowa., Ka:nsas, Mon,ana, '.Nevada, North Dakota. Ohto, Oregon, South Oarol1na, Utah, Vermont. Virginia, Wa.sh1ng,ou. and Wiscou1n.. 4. Iowa, Montana, l'ort;h Dakota, Ohio, Ol'egon, south Carolina, Vh'ginia, a:n4 Wash1128to~ 6. Ind!a.Da, Iowa, Maine, JH.ohlgau, J.tontana, New York, l'Orth Carolina., North Dako~a, Oh1o, Oklahoma., abode Islandt Sou.th Oat'ol!na, l11iaht Vermont• Virginia, and Washington. '· i:>. tr. a. 1919 B• Pase 101. .Be: ~· l poin1uh" ' I I J ~e right of a oommieeion to regulate service is thus seen to J ~ I \ I J cover a wide range of activities. MSD1' commissions havi:ng the pow~r· aa l, P. ·u. :a. 1919 c. 'PG8e 654. 'Lemts v. Bemi. I 1 ) OBAPTER FIVE ADMUIIS!I!RA!t IOlf Lawa, rules and regulations require alltorcement 1t they are to be ot a7J7 use. !ehis ohap~er is 00110amed with means of entorc•e:nt of what 81- :reaq exists on the statUttes and in the books ot mle$ and regulatione pu.b .. I lished by the oomm1as1one~ Partioulal" attention will be given to the axeou- tion of the lawe, investigations by the oonm1ss1one, oo~t procedure,_ 8114 col'lfl1Qts in Jurisdiction. Good admin1strat1on depends upon competent ofti- c1als quite as mch as upon good legi~lat1on. Good law& do lighten the work of the OQJ#llisaions. and no comniasion can make up tor the lack of minimum legislation. The Xdaho Comm1Gsion. has had mu.ch difficulty in entorcing its new ms law because the law S.s so broad in its terms and makes 1neutt1cient 1 provision tor neoeesal7 expend1tureQ ot 1he OomtDiesion. Qcmm1ss1ons ordinaril¥ have supervision over so b18lJ1' public utilities that it ls tm.Possible tor than to know 1mme41ately of all abuees• lnvestigatio:os by the comissione as the result 0£ complaints make up a l&l9Se part ot the admini$trative work ot i;he oomm1ss1omo A.rq of the com- miaeions having supervision can undot1ib1fedl;v make G1f1 inves·ugat; ions that thesr see tit. Five states provide that tha oosission ma.v investisate upou Us own mot ton OJ.1 upon conplaint, 2 Penn-sylvan1a make& tnvest1gat ions upon a oom,plaint b7 petition. l. Bus ~ransportat1ono Vol. 4, No, 12, D'tCe l925e 2, Colorado, J:ndJana., New tork, Utah. and W,Omiq. 3. Rule ll of B«alee ot Prac~i~e and P~ocedura. {Oct. 16. 1922). Four states provide that the co:mm1ssiouars or officers and em- 1 plo~ees ma, enter the propert1 ot public utilities to make iXtVestigations~ · Oolol'ado, Minnesota, and New York require that oommias!o:uera. oft1cere and emplo~ees be given :free tv®sportatio:n when in the pertormano& of their official ditties~ ~ha reports, and ott1cial !~spections betore mentioned are invaluable in ma1dng inveitisatione of' c'omplaintst) 2 s:rJtVl:QJ .m!, 1{0!11 IQi Deeisions ot tlle oommtseiona are served on tbs pe.rtios involved, 113.:f'ormi:ag them ot the mllnga of the oommtssioners. The PU.blic t1tUit1ee Act ct W70mins provides that: "Service on awl person ot :m::r not ice or ) order or other ~tter under the provisions ot th1s a.at ma:g be made b7 ma.11- bg suob not1o$, or order or othero ma.t,er, or ce:rt1t1ed cop7 thereof bi a registered let$er requiril'lg reeeip~. dit-eoted to the pttbl1o utilit1 at the p:ri~oipel office of such public util1t1' in this state. 113 Similar provisions are found in the public t\tility laws of all the otatas. Sta.tea having apeoial ena.ctm$lltS for regulation ot basses do not have separate provlsione in their bu.s transportation law9 for the aarYil'18 of not:lees. COUil P§OOiiJ2IBS JI !Ii qpptIS§lQI The Colorado Lav makes the Oommlssion a court tl1at oan institute l 4 proceedhlgs to the same extent and 111 the same DUUm$r as courts ot record. ~his em.powers them to issue summo»,s, subpoena.a., warrants of atta.ohmantt and 5 warran:bs ot commitment, Four other states ha.'le similar provisions. Bearings b7 the conm1ss1ons necessitate the a;tendan.oe ot witnesses 'l 1. Colorado. llew York, 11orth Oarolina, and Penns~lva.uia. 2. Olla.pta:v on Rates. page 13,. Phapter on Seniae, page 14. I, Seotion 43. 4. Seot'ion 391 Public Utilitiea Act of' Oolorado.- i. Xentu.c)ey', Nevada, Wew York, and Utah. tor 1;estif71JJS• In addition to those states providing tor court proceed- I ) I j ~ ingsil Oalitonia, Pennsyl\ta:nia, and Wyortdng provide tor the at tendanoe ot I J I •, witnesses. !rh.1• includes pro?1s1on tor witness fee$. l \ I : 1 1 I The eJ:lforcement ot th~ orders ot the oonmd.ssions is an im:>o:rtan- teature ot the regalation,ot bussea; Sufflclant funds at the disposal ot the c-:lssio'n is a prerequ.la1te to the u~e ot a."ly means ot enfozicemant.1 Penalt1es and court p~oceedings are the ohiet meane of enforcement. PQALTIES I I t Revocation or cancellation of t:he cert1f1oate ot convenience an.cl nacesa1t7 is the chief penalt7 for vtolation of the law or the ruleo ot the I I J a 5 commission. ~hU'tt eta.tea provide ~or the cancella.t1on ot oertif1oates. The nature of bus transportation makes it poasible to ca.noel oartiticates I 1 \ moll more easil7 than for other pu.blic tttilltit!&, s!noe the property of a bu.a compan;v is movable. It is not to b$ supposed that certificates will be cancelled w!thout a full hearing s1nGa that would be held to 'be collfiecat1on ' I of prope~~N without due process of iaw. robe same mmbe:r ot aiiat~s provide tines and Jail $entenees tor ' J.. Bu.a fl'anspo:r,atio:n. Vol. 4• No• 12, Dec. 1925• Page 638. 2• P. 1111) ti• l.922 :m, .Page 60?. Re:, Phoenig-Stwsrior Wruck Line. ~. u. R11t 1922 E. Page 63$. REU Ptlckw10~ S'ages. P. 11. ~ 1923 B. l?age l9t>.. lt11cwles v. trutkend~l. 122 W•h• 515; 210 ,Paco 666. 3. ~i=ons.1 .Al"kansas, California, Connecticut, ll1d1al1at Iil1):1()1s, lowa; lr&'rlsa.s, l\entu.olcy", Maine, Maryland,, ,Jtaseachueetts, Mlch1gan1 l!innesota. Mont&tta.•. Hev&4\, New t!SJJWS,bire,. l'orth Qai-olinat north j)elf.ota. Oklahoma, Ozegollt P$•SJ'lvania, Bhod.e Island, S01l1ih Oarolina. South Dakota. Utah, Vennont, V~rgi:nia. \Vashington, West V1rgLnia1 78. l violation ot the law. Entorcanent b1' this means would likely involve the use cf the courts • .Q..O~ PROOEEDUTGS Pro~eedings in the regular oourts a;rQ at times necessary to e~foroe th• Mlillgs of the eonm1ssion. Colorado and Utah provide that. the attorney 2 et the eommiaa1on mq eome11oe aot·ion i::n the district court. The J.aw of I w1omftng makes the Attorney Genel"al the legal adviser and representative of the a Commission. Oregon axad ~tab provide that the district at,orne7 bf the coUJJ.t1 - - 4 of violation ia to commenG$ action upon request oi the commission. Four states specify that the attorney gettera:J. of the state is to 1netitute aotion 5 on the request of the aomnlssion. I ~he N~ York ,LSJ11 requires ~he counsel ot tbe Oommis&ion to commence sotion in the supreme court of the State~ 6 !he Law 0£ M1oh1gan makes a veq wide prov is ion £or e:af or cement: ''Satd com- mis s:ton may use an;r and all available legal and equi tabl.e remedies of ~ civil nature' to entoroe the provisions 0£ this act, or 8'll1 la.wful o~der. rule or 'I regala.t ion made 1n pirsuance hereof' l'f tt Three sta:tao, Nevada., Utal'l, .and Wyomi:ng provid$ specifically for the us~ of the 1njunqt1on in·enforoement. Although other ~tates do not provide speeitioal.11 tor entorcenant by the use l. Oal1:forn1a, Oolora.do, Oomeot1011t, Iowa, Kansas.- Xe.ntucky, •ame, ltaryl$11d, ll(;L$&aohu.setta. 11.~higau. Mitmesota, ~tont8lla1 E'eveda.. :New Bam.pshire, Jlew York. North Qarollna, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pellllsylvania, Bhode Island, 1South OarolinQ, South Dakota. Utah, ' Vermout. Virginia.. Washington? West Virginia. Wisconsin, tV»"Oming. 2. Colorado Pablia Utilitie$ Aot. Section 60, U'tah PUblic l'Jti11ttes OcrtlDiasion AOtt Section 48420 SQ Wyo)l'!ing PUblio Utilitie$ Act, sections 10 and 55. 4. Oregon Law, Section 9. 'O'ta.b Law• siaction 4859. 5. Xentuo~. lfevada• P$llf.lsylvauia, and Utah. 6" Jfaw torlt l?Ubl.10 Sarvica Oonmbdon ;Law. Paragraph 1>'1'1 7~ PU.blio Acto No~ ~09. Seetlon'10. 79. ot the oourts, it is to be remembered thai; 8111' violation ot law is lll.bJeot to coo.rt action, and that the7 ax-a not without means ot enforcement. '?be 1».Juuotion 1s one ot the Ch1et means ot ento.rcenent ot the covts. ~e Bew York Oourt held tha.1¥ an 1nJu.nct1on mq or UJa7 no• be granted sinae it is otten a mat'ter ot discreU.o:n, 1 It 1e cuetom817 tor the If• York oour1 'o grant an inJu.noUon• however, when the righta ot the 2 plaintiff are oleare The 1n.ftmotion has boen used in Washington and 1111. 3 nois also to:r ell:toreement purposes. Pl'oaeoution mq be launched bJ 8J11 person againsi violaters ot the law. 4 Some sta,es do not leave 11 to the commission. to enforce the law. Virginia has a Oomrnlasioner ot J4otor Vehiolee vested w1th the powers ot eherltt to entoroe motor vehicle laws. 5 Borth Oal'olina requires the Se~re­ targ of Statte, through 'he Automobile Department, to see that laws, rules 6 and raga.lat ion• a.re el!torced. Bew Banpehire malcea it the du t,- of the ceun17 aolici~or in each ooun1; to entoree the provisions ot the law.7 It nu.st be reoogniz$d that all otticials ttllat; do their part in enforcement. A !'llli1l8 ot the Masaaohttsetts 0~1ss1on expresses 'he necessit7 of oonstant vigilancea "Bo rules relating to the op$:11ating ot Jitn97s can be self op~rativa, and therefore oonatau~ V1gilauoe should be ezercieed• both b7 1. New York, o. & w. ay. Oo. v. Gritt1n. 239 •• y. 1?4, 189 N. 11. 231. 2. ~raotion Co. v. Sm1th, P. u. 1. 1922 A~ p. 643. 187 u. y. Supp, 877. 3. --Wash.--• 212 Pact 259t Stats v. superior Oourt fbr King Oou.n.t7, -wash • ._, 219 Paco 845; Davis v. Olev1nger. P. t1111 ll. 1924 c. P. 158. 211 Ill. App. 139. Danville. l1. 6 c. .B.1• oo. v. t. z.. Olark truck Co. 4. 206 N. Y. s. 894, 209 App. Div. 904• ~a.otion oo. v. Walker. 231 JH.oh. 246, 203 JT. w. 948. People v. oarr. P• Aot, approved Muoh 4• 1924, oreat1ng »o•or Vehicle Commissioner. 6. seotion 4. Horth Carolina Ills Begulation Law. V. Section 4, Ohap. 86, Laws 1919 emended b7 ()hap. 59; Lawe 1921. eo. the s"ate and local authorities to see ~hat rules presoribed are constantly ~ , I tollowed and ellforoed." I REJIEARIRG .BI El ooglSSIQI ' I It .ott;en happ&Dti that parties think they have been mistreated b7 ' tbe deo1a1on ot a. commission, or 'hat the 1 deQ1sion was u:nlawtu.l. ~ New evi- ~ ' . - 4,ence rJJS'8 be available after, a decision. It is onl7 fair to both the ag. grieved party and the commiesion to have a. rehearing if' the oomm1u1on thinka the,.-e is sutt1o1ent grouds tor it. A ;reheari~ D1f.\V save 1'aldng th'e oa~e to the courts. Probably all ot the conmiss1ona would grant a rehearing it eut- , I f 2 fic1ent grounds were shown, and eleven nate laws authorize theln. I No' all ot the state bus regu.latton laws provide' tor appeal to the oOUl'ts,, 'bllt p:robab).y all 0£ the state coUrts wwld hear 'appeals. For instance,l the Motor Vehicle Act o:t Oklahoma doee not speQif icall.7' provide tor appeal frQD. the Oor,porat1on Oomission, bu.t the Sup:reme Court of Oklahoma has held that it ' ,, 3 has the rigb.t to review such cases. 11he south Carolina law gi•ant s the right I I I l 4 ot appeal to afr3' court ot competent Jurisd1ot1on. Eight states p;rovide tor appe&l. to the d1etrict or circuit court, 6 and sixteen states speciticall.J pro- 6 v14e tor appeal to the supreme cour1i ot the statet 1. P., u. a.- 1919 c. Page 900. Be; Union Street B. Oo. 2. Colorado, Xentuo]"9", Minnesota, Nsw York, Horth :i>9kota, Ohio', Oregon, Pexuis11van1a, Ut$h, Wash~JJSto~, aud Wpm:lJ18• 5-. **Es paxtte Sale•• ... Oklahoma-, 233 Pao. 186. 4. SeoU.on 121 AO~ tiJ ~t, SO\lth Ofil'olina. , 6. Iowa. ltentuck¥, JU.nnesQta, Nevada, :North Dako~a. Oregon. Wi$cons1n, and Wyami?Jg. a. Oalito~nia, Colorado, Oonneotiout, Iowa, Xentuclr$~ Minnesota, Nevada, Oh~o, O:regon. Penn$7~v~ia.. Jib.ode ~sla.nd, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington• and \f1'oming. OQ~ tlf.?E!iPR~T 1011 .QE. ml l;A! State courts are often called upon to interpret the state law ~n oases of appeal. Su.ch cases involve su.oh points as whether the 'com- , I mission has power o~ not O'Ver oe~t,eJ,n typea of vehicle, and the ~tent I I ) ot tl1at pGwer. ~ie, .Arkansas SU;pr~e a,ourt held that th~ Aote ~t ~~2~ en.. l ' ~itlad the A.r~sas oommias~Qn to r~a~e bu.ssas. ' Other case~ before the state maprsme oo\:arte ~ve defined the elttent of the power 9t the com- 2' mi ssic,msj] I I OONS?:mtTlONP..:Liq:I ~ .mfil STA'2UTES ~he oonstitutlonalit~ of tbs $tat~taa hae no~ often beep question- ed. dnoo this 1rnatte.!f had baen prett;y well decided upon when railroada were firs~ placed ~nder oontrol of tho commissions. Those oases that,have been 3 appea:,.e~ have qu.ite, !JeneraJ.J.y upheld th~ ooustitutiona~ity of the statutes. it acta or parts of acts were held to be .u,nconst1tutional9 it would afford considerable embarras;mant to the oomntssions. ..t p1·0Yiaion ln the act 1 t ... self for validation ot all the aat :r.tot held unconstitutional, aud tor re- peal of port~ons held unoone1tUutio:ru).l and 1n0oneiste:nt should save woh troublt3• Seventeen Sta.tee hava SU.Oh ClattSeS in their laws. 4 I I l. P. v. R. 1923 E~ Page 83. -~Ark ....... , 251 s.w.10. 2. P. u. R. 1917 o, Page 178. --s.a. 113 oai. so2. L·R·A·-···162 Pac, 891. P., u. :a.. 1923 A• 1ase 232. --OaJ.~-· 209 Pac. 586. P. u. :a. 1923 E, )age lQ~. --o«i;.--. 215 Pac.' a'sa. Austin l!l"es. ~ranster oo. v. Bloom. , 3~$ Ill. 43~, 14? N.E. 387. 1iiQ'lf$n Ve Gurau. , -'3h19~, 446 !1t~• 806. :v.x. parte ,Sales.. -OJrla..-• 33$ Pac. 186. ~. P., u. 14 it23 .&; PsgQ 151. 9~ c~. 12e. llS A.ti. s1. · . Reo BU~ Lineo oo. v. southe.rn D·L~ ao., 209 ~. 40• 271 s.w. 18. l?. u. ll. 191& A, P,age 9tst?• $.C. ,lTO A-PP• Div. 5~0. 156 N~Tit s. 140. Gruber v. Oommo:n.wealthip -Virg1n1.a.-• 125 s. E. 42?. p. u. a. 1915 E., Page 93., .... w~ Va·-· 85 a .. ~ 'ISl. P. lt• :a. 1924: B• Pag~ 78--5. ,-w, 'V~-1i 12~ S,.,E. 6~2. 4• Oal,.itor1da, J:ansast Xen~uck;f~ J1$rmes9ta,, llont~, N9rth Carolina, North Dakota, Ohto. Oklahoma, l'aneylvan.1"' llhode Isl~, south Oarolille.t south tratmta, Utab.11 V!vginiaf Wtisbingto~ $id ~tug, .mD:liN .QI !l!BE OBJ>E.RS .Q!. 5 QQgISSIOI !!.1he comniasions are int,enied, to be administrative bod1ea with powers little limited by other eutbo~ities. '..fh~r~ ie little gai~ in ha~ing a· -Qomnission 1£' eveey decision is golng to be ll'av1ewed bJ' a qoiirt. lt is expedient, therefore, to~ the court to contixm the dee1eio:n of the com- misalon. when at all pos;ible, lt ie well that the cour·ts have held that ' l ordil'JU7 dec1a1one of the coranbsion are not open to review. Bu'C1 more important is the faot that the coUJrt& have usually oonf inned the decisions 2 o~ the comd.esions1when reviewed..o fhe Illinois SUpreme Court bas !i.9e- v:lewed several deoisions of ~he lllino·is Oanmission, holdi!2@! "th$t decisions ot tha Co!nlllisaion nast be reasonabLl.i& w.cl iawtu.l, and 'Whether the7 ara so or 3 :not as subJect to 'l'eV1sw., The question of whether court~ should have Jur:.ls4ic&1on or not, end if tath how meh, is a queet!on nf the value ot o~ govarnnental scheme ot checks and baJ.ant)e.. !fhe fact that we still cling to the e1at$l shows that most people favor its cont:tnuation. l:t \' r&1.St be dlsgQst 1ng to the ~o!nl!lts$ionert3 to '.have the:$r decisions reviewed by a court professi?Jg tt> be a epeeialUi onl.7 on points ot law. AS8l'ieved pai-t tea appaal 1na their eases nnst ordi~il:r bel !lave that 1 t is wortih the i. P. v. a. 1923 A.. 'i ese 316. -0010 ...... , 20~ Paa. 940. P. 11. B.. 19.23 A. Rage 12?. 97 Conn. 45S, 117 Atle11 494. GrQ.bei' 'V• Oommonwealth. -Virginia-., 125 S.E. 42'1. P~ U. :a. 1924 D. page lJ/l, -Wash•--• 223 Pac. lOtS. 2. P. u. a, l920 J. Page 310. aso 111. p?4• 125 1.a. Z?a. P • U .- R., 1923 E. Paga 150.. 309 Ill. 8? • 140 L :m. 56. Choate v. llli:noie Oomme~oe Oomm1se1on. --Ill•--• 141 N.E. 12. P. v~ B. 1924 1. Page 5Sb. -~M10h·--· 196 lt.W. s1aQ p. u. :a. 1922 E. Page 335. -Wash.--, 206 Pae. 21. i. u. a. 1923 :e. ,Page 190. J.i22 Wash. -315, 210 J?a.c. 6&6. p. tr. R. 1923 E• Rase 101· -wash.-• 214 Pac• l$4o :Davis I: Banker Vo ~iokell. --Wash•-• 218 ?ao. l~Sa i• U, ll. 1924 »• Page :J.14. --Wash.-, 223 Pao. 1048. s. P. u. :a. 19.23 E. Page 160. 309 111. 9?. 140 NtE•' ae. moneJ" and trouble Ozt they wo'Q.ld not do eo. Probably the courts have made l their au.thor1t7 telt more on the ques!;ion of' intGrstate oonmeroe tl'la11 on a'tJ'8 other question considered. The laws of' twelve o:t the states having bus regalation provide that the law is not applicable to interstate commerce, except as permitt- ed by the United States Oonetitution.1 fhis provisionpennits the ex- pression ot opinions b1 the coimnissiotters, and has been a source of lnBl27 law suits. !he oonmiasions have qu.ite generiall7 held that the7 have authorit~ over in~erstata commerce so long as it does not subjeot that ea. 2 business to u»reasonable demends and ia not opposed to Federal legislation. The state courts have generall~ upheld the oomnissions in the exercise ot 3 this power. ~e Oalitornia Stlpreme Oourt, however, held that the Oom- miSslon ha.d no Ju:riediotion where the operator wa.s e:ogaged solel7 in 4 int$rsta.te commerce. The United Sta.tee Supreme Court and the Federal Courts have tor some time held that registration and 11cens1Jig ot auto- , 6 mobiles and dri'Yera was not invalid regu.lat1on of 1:n-terst$.te commerce. 1. Oalito:rnia, Colorado• Kentu.clq, Minnesota, Montana, Hew Yo.J:»k, Borth oarolina, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Virginia. Washington. 2. P. U. R, 1924 Q. ;age 601. Rea Arizona Paei:tio !ransit Oo. P. V• R. 1924 O. Pase 127• East St. Louis O. & W.R. Oo. v. Dingerson, , P. u. R. 1922 D-. page 193. Bartele V• Bes$ler Brothers. P. U~ R~ 1923 E. page 311. Geneseo Rock lslalld BUS Co. v. B1lbert. P. U. R. 1922 Oo Page 71. Re: E:agelke. P. u. R. 1921 a. Pase 628~ Ohambersbu.rg, G. ! w. St. Rt Oo. v. Ba:r1•36 fl ii ... " $~.ooo. -~ fl ~ 36-40 p fa n rt 04.o.ooo. ti ,, 41.-45 n ·~ u rJ $45.,0001• ti ~ 46-60 Q ,, u u $00~000- tt ff , -V pe.s 11u;Jn3o~s e--12 'l 13-16 1J 19-24 ~ ae- la ea ' .. 7 paasen~ers S-12 n 13-18 it 19·24 ~ a~ J1 By 1ti:\noonaiu; wl4 p~!H.tenc;ei-si lS.. u / ' ' •12 pasoemc;era 13•20 Vt 21- u I ' Byi Nortsh De~ota; , .. a pasa~e;er~ 9.;.12 ~ ia~1s ~ 16•20 fS '' BY' 1Iieat Vire;ini.M -1 pam~ange1f$ .. 6-12 ft 13-20 " 21-30 ,., 51- ~ I \ $104)000• per person n tt ~ ~ n n n n 1 er ' California, Filins fee ' Minnesota~ Filing tea 'l!ranaf er fee Duplioate oertifioate f~e Mo.at nna, Mortga&a fee nuplio~te cerGifioate f ae Duplicate offioi~l r~oeipt fee or econ., Vellio le f ae Soutb Dakota~ Application fee . ~aehington, App11oation f ea OAPAO:t'l!Y $:.AXE franster fee Monge.r;s f ea Duplicate oertifioate foe 050.00 $26,00 0- s.oo 0 3,00 e 2.so e i.oo $10.00 ~io~oo Alabama., oity of 5~000- 30~000 city of 30~000•1Qo.ooo $loo. fe~ 5 soabs~ $10. for onoh ex. ~150. fer 6 sent$~ $10, for each ex. .. Artsonap per passenger oepaoity mile ' ' . KMaae~ •7 paa~enGsr oapaoity $ 40.00 par rear a-12 tt :t & 90,00 n tt 44 13-18 tt ft 0140.00 It ., 19 .. 24 tt " $180.00 • " 25· .. " e~~o.oo .. ,. " ~ ..... S:entuoktJ$ •5 pa,ssenc;or oapao:i..ty • 11.SO pij:r year a-a •• ti $ 40a00 it u e-20 tl OJ ~aoo.oo IS fi ,.. 20 .. tJ tt 0aoo,oo tt n uurylana~ -a.ooo lbs~ per paasen~er 'on mtle J./20 nf one oent • Solid tired~ 3,000-7"000 lbs, t1 n n u l/18 It ll n 1.000- ff u tf n lt 1/7 " 10 ft q Pneumatic tired i a.ooo-a,aoo lbe. t1 111 H .. 1/18 " 13 " a,.soo- it n " n " 1/7 12 ~ " ... 5 paaaen5er oapaaity 1 a-10 Vt n lJ.•20 to H OblofJ •1 psaaan~e~ oapaoity v-12 n ~ $40.00 $90.00 per yevreoiation of ~ranspor1mtion Oapi·tal E-ltia Other T~ansp()rtat1on E.ltpenaes St.e.t:t.on Elq>aaaes E-l.2 ~ Salaries of Station :&nployaos E-13, Rent of Sta'tio1la E-14. Othw Station EXpenaas Gener~l E;gpenses E-llh GenarStl O.ftioe Salaries 0!!16, General Office Rent ts E-17. Rent of 2ermina.l Faoilitiea ~18 • lnderoo:i:ty Inauranoa D-l.9. OtbEtr Ir:rsursnoe E-20~ La-w ExpenfJensae . E-22. lnjurie$6 Loss a:t1d D~me\ge E-23 i Depreciation of General Capital E-24:. Other General Expeases 93 101, Operating Ra~fJ11u0s ··------~--------..,_----~ $ 102, OporBtinr.; Ex.pona.es - ... -------·--:--................ _.,. __ xxxxx . l'Tot Revenue ·-·--------·----............ ---... --°"""'Dxu Taxes ~~-~---~--~---·---~---~--------~---e Unoo11eotible Revenue ---~-~---~--------~~ Opernting Inoom.e ----·--·-----"---------~ ~ lOfh Revenue ~rom Aux5J .. iary Oper""tiQns (net) -~-$ l.06 • ~ion-Opertlting Reveaue (net) ----·---.... ·-··-· I ..,/;1li9c;1c~ Gross Income ~--w·--------~---------7---~ ~ DEDlJCTim!S FROM GROSS li~COltml ~ ~ 107. Interest on Leng :Cerni Debt~ .:"" • .: ... .,._ ............ __ $ JW!:.U 10s. Interest on Flo~tint; Debt ---... -------............ _... ~ 109. Other Deduo'4lons from Gro~a Inoome .......... _ .. .,._ JOCCQt 110• Income and Surtaxes -~-Q·--•w-••·-----~A~· Net Income ------~~--*------~-~-~--~----~· U Unreaarveti Capital a.t Baeinni:ng 'of YeS\r ···O x~ 111. Contributions of Cnpitnl ""~---·--- ....... ----r··- Ja"..L"'tX l.Uh 1-i!imcellaneoua Additions to CClpital .............. . -~~ ~ 113. Appropriations to Capital Reserves ------- 114. Uithdrew~la of Profits ~-~--~-------~----~ l.15• Othor Deduotioiie .frotn Capi·hal ................. --.... --cq. U1u·0oarvoo Oa.pltal at Oloae of Yenr (aa per balnnoe sheet) ·--~~--~....:..---~--~la~"tXZ ~ Oolor~do Connootiout Idaho . Iowa ' Maine Minnesota A. Statutes of State& 3~esion Laws 102~, Cbap~ ?6~ Stll'hutss 1917., OMp, 2).3. St5'tutec l9l91 Ch~-. 280. StQtutea l.921.$ Coop. 84.0, Statutes 1923b Chap t olO~ St~tutes 1926, Chapa. 145~ 153~ 2'34~ U.lwa of 1913& Chap~ 127- Lawa of l915a O~..np. 13~~ Publio Aote l92l# O'hap, 11. PUblio Acta 1921, Ohap~ 840. Public Aot~ 1925• Chaps" ~. 2~,. I Lawe of Th.a Forty-fira·b G(lna:ra.l A~n;at.1bly, Chnpth 415., Lavis of 1926, Chap. 20Ch 1\1otor Bua lat.9'1 Chaptor Sl:t Public Lt1.t.1S 1921~ Ol'ltlp. lB{k, PUblio tawa 1923; Ohnp. 211 .. ~blio La\1S lD25, Chap. 187-i Acta of 1916, Obep. sio. Aots of 1918, Chap, 1991 Seo. i~ Aots of 19221 Cbnih 401., Seo. i~ Aota of 19241 CrlllJ?• 291, Seo. i~ Goneral Lnwa1 Ohapt 280. Bessiott of 192:3~ Pub1io Act lfo.t 209a Session Latta~ 1926~ Chap. 185~ Session Ltl.we 1928~ Chap~ 15~t Public Ser"irlae comx;iif;:Htion Latv., Ob~pth l09b 1621 ~we of 1919~ ooop. 8th Laus of 1921, OhQp, 59. 96 Noo York ' ' North Carolina . . Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania ' Rbode Island South Carolina . . South Dakota Viretnla Yfa$hlngi4on \fest V!.rr;in5.a \1isoonBil1 t ~WG 1 0f 1911~ Chap~ 195, Lm~s of 1912, chap. so. LE\WO of l913-1 CHlQPta.4'111 L~iWS 1 0f l917, Onep.a1a~ Laws of 1915~ Chapt130. Laws of t92l~ Ohepa. 36, 101~ 149. Laws 0£ 1924~ Chaps. 168a ias. ' ~bl;i January Sessions 1922~ Chapa, 2221, 2222. Aota of 1925~ Ha. l?O. . Soo!:d.on laws of 1925, Chap 11t 224a 0pmp1lod I.41:a of, Utah, 1917~ 4?7i5-4853o La.we 'af 1925, obQp. 111~ Aats of 1925~ Noa. 73, 74, 67~ 68; 90. ' . Aota of 1923, Chap, 161~ as amanqed in l924. I ' Isiwa of 1921~ Ohap. 111. taws 1of 1923~ Chaps. 79~ 107, <.) ! Aot s of 1926_,, r.fbS'Jih 17, Soch 82" W~aoanaln StC1rtuto'i., Cbap, lelt11 uawa of 1915~ ahap~ 546~ Ltwl8 of 1925, Ohapi 390~ 96 Tho Public Utilities A~t9 os ruuanaod by the 18th :LaGiolo:Lure~ C04"'lneotlout- Illinois Kana as ' Montana Nebroaka Maw Jersey Mow York 1\iorth Carolln~ I~orth Dal:ot& Oid.e.l:1on:a 1 ' Gqnare.1 Ordare$ rloe 11> 'i'2•A, 'l4-A0 88-Aa 92•A:- 93.A,, Md 94-A1t l I Rules anQ REJ.Gulationa, 1926, caao No, 607. Rulee and Regulations. Case HotJ 930! Orda:ra 6329~ 6969, Rulao ond Re~ulBtiona~ 192~; B ~ le~ t Rules and RaGUlatlona~ 1926. • l Raaolvtdoa Ho~ 86; Supple.nental o~ae:ro 2~~h Ge~a~al Otdero Noa$ A·l~ A~2~ ~3~ Tarlf~ Ruling ~o. A-l~ Rulaa at1d H.e5ulatlons, Ordare r!oe, l292t 1440~ 1669ia ~peoilioations Applylng to Auto Buses• Iu Ee: Chapter 50~ PubliQ Laws of l926j PTovidinc for tho Regulntion of .no·bpt) Vohiole Carriere. In Re: E~tabllabment of Union Stations for uae of Motor Vohiolo Carrior$ Und-0r Provisions Ohnpter. 50~ Pt1bilo La"flS 1926~ Rulea r.md Ilmliaa~ ruffoo~ive July 21 l92S, Utah l Virginia l V/QGhi:ngton \I Rulos ~.,d Re~lnti ons., P.s.c$ Ord.er F•1297; 1926• B.ules and RegU.lation~ governing 'fnrlif~ and Schedul••• In1les ai."'ld RegulaM.ons for Aooount:i:ng Methods. ' .,J Rules. ,of J?raotise be.tore :Che Publio Sex-vice Commissi&i. Geno-r~l Order No a 16, Adopte4,1 Oct• 21, 1919. G;ner~l Ord or I:Jo • 24b Aaoptad Feb, l~a 1922" I I Bulee ,and !t(1gu~a~!ons, '1925. · ' ' I B.ulae and Ragul~tions. 1925• order 501?. , Rules and Ra{)ulations, Effeotive Jan. lat1 1918 and cmendad 1 ~ne 21~ 1922i • Rt1? .. oo and Regulo.tiona •. General Order Nol} io. - '. Rules Qtld Rogul~hions~ Oraer s~o.o., Oa$e No. 1950, r' I Rulea and Ra(5ulat1om,. General Ord~r M.,v. !lth ll, Snppl.oroont Mo• 2a Genera,l Orilore M. V. Noa., 13-22. Rule• and Rer;ul8'tionsl;\ 1925. 99 9~ Oonn. 453S U.7 Atl~ 494. 1fu{losta Vti, Cprmaotiowh Commtsei.on. 9'7 Conn. '1~6f 118· Atl, 81• Sttlto v, D&r0.S6lh -- u. lit -awj 129 Atl.11 117. tn rot Opinion of tho JuatloEHh . ~-- R:. l• -1 129 A\11 613. Newgort Eleot:rlo Qorporstion v. Oakley. 200 Ill• 514J 125 fi$E. 373, Puolio UbilitiGs Co~&sion v, Bartonvillo Bqa tine. 259 ?111.1 y., l'l4J 139 ll•E• 231t lI• York• O~tnrio & fl.RA Oo~ v. Gd.tfith 309 Ill• 87J 140 N.E. 66. \fast Suburban !£!ra..'1sportat5 .. on oo. v. ChlptlGO ~:; \f • ~. Ra Coa --- Ill-. --i 141 If•E• 129 Choat• v. Illinois Com.merc,e Comnl.sa1t.mr. __. O\'liot eeti:s•~ 146 J:hE4' sos, Hissem. V:i. Gurrlth 316 Il.J.. 435,; 147 M1E. 587, Aµstin Broth Transfer oo. v. Bloom • .. .,... Alficlh -..-s 198 ?!$11 .. ul.8, Rapid Rtl Cow .. ,, Public Ut!U.t1ea OQ~Hi.Oth 231 M.iolir. 24.Sj 203 ?IoW~ 94:8t Peopl9 Vt Ct\n!• .... O~l· -~-; 150 PM• us. Ex J?Qrto aardinalt .. 3.73 Oalr. 802J 162 ~01; u9l1 i~eat0rn A13eociation i.r. Rail:ro&d Cbmmiesion, ....- ~ .. Ith .... , 201 r.'AO• 007 • John l"Ia Haddad et ai 1t v. Statth ~-- Uasll.- -~•z 200 Pno\t 21, Statt v. Railroad Ooltt01ssion. --- Ooloa ....... ; 209 Paa, 040. Pirio v,. Pnblio U'ltiU.tieif Comt!lS.aaion 1 122 lf~ab. 3lGJ 210 li.\o, 6&h Knowlas v. IDly~e~all• ••v.t l~PiSh• -.-; 212 Pac. 259a. StAta .,,,. St;lperior Cotrrt for Kin~ coulltY• ,...A. C~1o ---B 216 Pao. 898. Coa,.et fruok 14.na ir. Rti5.1roo.d Oondiesion., .... itaabi> -~•z 214 Pao. 16~b Sta.ta 'a.A rel .. B~ & !'.!, Auto Frei~ii v. , . D~partment ~f Publio WorkB. •-=l ..... 1"!Mh• ·--J 23.8 fAQt> 19lh D~vis aiia Bemker "• Nioka11 • .... l"V~•h• ---z 219 1?$0. 84:51) Davis v. Clevingor, , -· \Ve.sli. ...... J 223 Pathlf)18• State elt rel11 United Auto Tranaportatlon , co. ~h Department of Publio iior1!$ • ...... Okl«h ...... » 235 Pno. iaa. Ex Parte Sales • .... oaJ., •••i 236 fa• Bogl::G ?.6otor ~raneport~tioa of llorohandiao ~ld 2~aa~gers, by WhitG.(1923) Public Util1tios., 'b;r Pond (~bird ~ltion) Public Uia!.litiea MiJGl'th (Atmotatoo) Years 1915•1924 1nolus:ilr6, 1, I' • ft'lg Soienae of llailtmys, by Kirkm!lin~ Vol. mi~ StDtto Gasoline ~~a,, bV Edmund f9 Lo~oo~ Dulletin by ~he Ud!va1"sitv of I!Msn Ropol't1' ~d Pi~blot~ 11Bus ~ra.neportation;1 by iarts HilbUrth B,Ulle~in bf ~he 'P'nivers:ttv of Okla11omth Vol. ilD Febo 1, 1925~ fe\6e 8311 Govoi-nmont&l Rtt;Sulntion of r!otor Vel11ol~ Coau~ Oar:rier8 • (1925 & J,92$) ~!ohor Voh1cl~ Conference Oo~tto~. Report ol! 00\1Eit'ba on Mo;hor l3Uf! Operation.,~ Aseoo:tatio11 of American 'J!raffi.o Otftce:ra, Oot • 2s l924h Pages 99•,14.9, Roport of Mstionol Autetmobi le 011.0r"lier of Ooiwwroet> "'fhe Futuro of the J!otor Bus• 11 ' . Repot~ of Special O~ttee,lV ~f tho Gba.Plbqr 0£ Oon:iaro~ of tpe UoS•,1 ''lle1€;\tior<2 nf RiGhml~ra ana Motor frrannport to Other 1'ran$porl• atton Agenoiea ,n (nffil~ l~U) 11 'J!he i'ield of the iJLotol" l3uo in tho Troll$y Iadtu~trv~11 by ~,Ra; Dtnl. National P...ute Ohtl.~e:r of Oot!tneraet '. 0-.Ch~ Future pf the Motor :BusJ1 bif F,~'l F(tgeo,~1> National Aute Oh&ibor of Oom.D.()roe ! 103 l F • Mar;az:l.no and !Tewsp~p~r Ariiolea Autemot!.ve Industri~s-- Vol• 54 No, "11 Feb. 18., 1926. nMoto:r BUa. Design l!rendth9 nus frrnte.poriation"• Volumes l•lh , ll'.arvat"d Bttsino:ra R&VS.8\1.- Vol. IV, J~11,~ 1928., Pae;e, 153,, . ·~be Motor Bua Situation in 19!5" • by Murratt' rr. I.sstimer. l11.td.i05.pal an~ county EnfSinaGt'in~-*11 yo1, ~~. :f.b;r,. ).924•' ''Txransporta.tion ContJetition~ Oo•opcro;Lion and Coordit10..tion.u (Anon,). , 6Co•op~J.'ation Va• Competition in tranaporte.tiot1 Servioen,, ~by Frnnlt Dixon• Uett York 'fribttru1-. F$b., 10, 1921, 11Give ~ho ~ruok Oi o~noo"" (Ana.ch) . Publio Ronda•• Vol. 6~ Oat·~ 1920~ . ~Re3.r1rcaa /&bandonnen~b a· and :C'heir Relation tto !!.:lc;l~y ... ~BtH''l?ortation••.. U.f. nenry !fru,mbov;o:r. nihe Si»-lmeol '&ruck and the Pave-!1911ih~':.i!Qstttttt • by L.~k1• Tell~r.