A Bevy of Presidents

The Interstate Commerce Commission, after formulating a tentative plan for consolidating the railway systems of the East, opened its hearing in Washington, at which presidents of the leading railroads gave their views and made suggestions.

According to the proposed plan there would be three chief systems in the East under the consolidation, each built around one of the existing lines, the New York Central, the Pennsylvania, the Baltimore and Ohio. A. H. Smith, Samuel Rea, Daniel Willard, presidents of these respective roads, expressed their substantial approval of the Commission's plans with modifications. Opposition came chiefly from the smaller roads: the Philadelphia and Reading, Central of New Jersey, Delaware and Hudson.

L. F. Loree, president of the Delaware and Hudson, was the most vigorous assailant of the Commission's plan. He attacked not only the specific suggestions put forward by Professor William Z. Ripley of Harvard for the Commission, but the general idea which it embodied. He characterized the proposal as " threatening and strange," " amounting to duress," " violently disturbing," impairing to " public welfare," " a pure abstraction of mathematics," " an insidious blow at the railway industry." As for combining strong and weak roads, he declared: " A mixture of good eggs and bad eggs always produces a bad omelette."

After Mr. Loree's tirade had proceeded for half an hour, Commissioner Hall rose and asked that Mr. Loree confine himself to the subject and make constructive suggestions. Thereafter Mr. Loree objected that the proposed plan gave too much power to the New York Central and offered several alternatives. When his testimony was concluded Commissioner Hall asked Professor Ripley whether he cared to question Mr. Loree. " No," replied the originator of the plan, " I do not care to ask Mr. Loree any questions." Two chief difficulties were brought out at the hearing. One is the disposal of the New England roads, which, as a whole, are in poor condition. There was considerable opinion for combining them into a single unit. The other is the question of terminal facilities in New York-- whether they should be divided among the systems or consolidated into a single organization independent of all. The Central of New Jersey and the Philadelphia and Reading, for example, are anxious to remain independent of the Baltimore and Ohio, to which the Commission would attach them.