REGULATING RAILROADS: The ICC Is Not Up to the Job

OF all the slow-moving, detail-bound agencies in Washington's bureaucracy, the champion is probably the Interstate Commerce Commission, oldest of the Government's nine independent regulatory bodies. And yet its job is one of the most important. It rules over the destinies of 450 railroads, 20,000 truck lines. 300 freight haulers on inland and coastal waterways, pipelines, terminal companies, etc. Currently, the ICC is in the middle of the fight for the New York Central and has petitions from both sides charging skulduggery. Nobody would be more surprised than the petitioners if the ICC concluded its investigations before the issue is decided by the stockholders in May.

To light some boilers under the ICC, the Administration is backing a "time-lag" bill requiring that rate cases before the ICC be decided within 60 days. It is also trying to streamline the ICC by eliminating some of its 15 scattered bureaus. To this end. three bureaus were merged into one last week. And it is pressing for the resignation of Democratic Chairman J. Monroe ("Steamboat") Johnson. 75, both for patronage reasons and to put in a younger chairman. So far, Johnson refuses to budge. Actually, Johson is one of the most vigorous and effective men at ICC, within the limitations of the agency's regulations. He can be outspoken when he thinks the railroads are falling down on the job, but pushes harder than anyone to get rate decisions through when the railroads need them. The big trouble is that the ICC needs more than just a highballing chairman.

Employees, steeped by long service in their own bureaucratic traditions, are buried in paper work and time-wasting procedures. They have been doing the same thing the same way for so long that they resist efforts toward a speedup. A 1952 analysis showed that 27.5% of the staff were 60 or older and 37.8% were between 50 and 60. Says a veteran staffer: "Nobody ever retires from the ICC. Departure is only by death."

All the paper work slows up vital decisions, such as on rate increases, for months and years. The ICC now has 560 rate cases pending, some of them filed as far back as 1952. Moreover, the commission is so scrupulously fair and long-suffering at its hearings that it will hear all witnesses at any length. As a result, shippers and farm lobbies know that they can filibuster a rate increase merely by bringing in more witnesses. Meanwhile, the railroads' costs have already gone up. Since 1945, the delay in rate cases has cost the railroads more than $500 million.

Part of this is due to the outmoded law under which the ICC operates. One of its original purposes was to protect the public against monopolistic railroad practices. But cars, trucks and planes have brought keen competition to the transport industry, and so have drastically reduced the monopoly dangers and the reason for ICC. Instead of withering away, the ICC is now devoting much of its time to protecting the railroads from themselves. For example, 25% of the time at rate hearings is spent on the effect that an increase will have on the public, 75% on whether it will hurt rail traffic. The railroads would rather do away with such paternalism and let free competition take its course.