Of course, this is a situation of which the Interstate Commerce Commission is aware and with which it is attempting to deal. Federal Coordinator of Transportation Eastman said in 1934: "... An objectionable phase of the railroad situation for many years has been the maintenance of regional differences and distinctions, which are very imperfectly related to differences in costs and of territorial boundary lines ("Chinese walls") where rate systems and practices change. It has tended to provincialize the railroads and discourage national unity of action. It has been a prolific source of complaints to the Commission. Regional competition in rates and service has been as keen as the direct competition of parallel lines, and has had equally undesirable and uneven results. It tends to concentrate at the points best located to enjoy it. Moreover, it has been difficult for the Commission to remedy such inequalities, for the courts have recognized differences in competitive conditions as a defense against discrimination."11

Only a very extensive study of our whole freight-rate structure would show exactly how important this problem is. Certainly the whole tendency of Federal regulation of railways has been to remove discriminations. But there is clearly some indication that Our railroad freight-rate structure may still be of some importance in raising barriers to the free movement of agricultural products in interstate and interregional trade.

MOTOR-VEHICLE REGULATION

Perhaps no invention of recent times has

10 Ibid., p. IV.

1 Sea. Doc. 119, 73d Cong., 2d sess., p. 29, 1934.

been more productive of laws and regulations than the automobile. Although the chief purpose of motor-vehicle legislation has been to regulate and to tax, not infrequently an important result, whether intended or not, has been to place a heavy burden upon interstate commerce. From the standpoint of this study three types of State motor-vehicle legislation will be considered: (1) Registration (licenses) and taxes, (2) regulation of weights, size, and equipment, and (3) port-of-entry laws. Finally, the effect of action by the Federal Government under the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, will be discussed.

LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND TAXES ON OUT-OFSTATE MOTORTRUCKS

Registration and license fees are ordinarily imposed on motor vehicles so that they will contribute toward the cost of building and maintaining highways and of regulating the traffic upon them. But a problem arises in connection with motortrucks from other States. It is conceivable that a balanced interstate truck movement might exist between two States. In such a case the burden would be fairly well equalized and a reciprocal agreement not to tax the trucks from the outside State might be easily arranged. But such a situation seldom exists, and the State from which few trucks leave in interstate commerce but whose highways are used to a great extent by out-of-State trucks, feels itself justified in taxing the foreign motor vehicles. The actual situation in regard to registration requirements and taxation of out-of-State trucks is extremely complicated as would be expected with independent legislation by 48 States and the District of Columbia.12 All that can be done here is briefly to summarize the situation and to indicate those aspects which seem most burdensome to interstate commerce.

12 For detailed factual summaries of motor-vehicle laws and regulations see: Motor-Vehicle Traffic Conditions in the United States, Part I, Nonuniformity of State Motor-Vehicle Traffic Laws, House Document No. 462, pt. I, 75th Cong., 3d sess.; Motor Carrier Reciprocity (Washington, D. C., 1937) issued by the American Trucking Association, Inc.; and the following publications of the National Highway Users Conference of Washington, D. C.: State Barriers to Highway Transportation, 1938; Registration Fees and Special Taxes for Motor Vehicles, 1938; and State Restrictions on Motor Vehicle Sizes and Weights, 1938.

Most States have varying license and tax regulations for different classes of out-of-State carriers. These requirements are usually most exacting on common carriers, less drastic on contract carriers, and least severe on private carriers. Our discussion is confined chiefly to the last-named group, for, in most parts of the country, truck movement of farm produce is accomplished largely by private carriers. As State regulations are most liberal on this class of carrier, the effect will be to understate rather than to overstate the difficulties in the situation,13

The disadvantages to interstate commerce may arise in two ways. (1) If the "foreign" truck is forced to take out a second registration (or even more, depending upon the number of States it enters), it bears a heavier burden in terms of license fees than does the carrier that confines itself to intrastate commerce. (2) A few States charge a relatively higher ton-mile tax on trucks that have foreign licenses than they do on those that bear their own license plates.

Certain other taxes may be a deterrent to interstate motortruck movement, even though not ordinarily placing any heavier burden on interstate than on intrastate commerce. This situation arises in the case of States that have relatively high gasoline taxes. Of course, an advantage to the interstate trucker may result if he can buy gasoline in a low-tax State for use in one having a higher tax. But most States that have a relatively high gasoline tax effectively guard against this contingency either by limiting the quantity of gas that can be brought into the State or by providing that taxes shall be paid on gasoline brought across the State line.

The States differ greatly among themselves in respect to their license requirements on foreign motortrucks. A number of States having the most liberal laws in this respect collect no tonmile taxes and make no attempt to require private carriers from outside the State to take out licenses as long as they do not engage in intra

13 It should be noted, however, that a high license fee on a common carrier that makes daily trips across a State line may be less burdensome because the cost is spread over many loads than a relatively low fee on a private carrier that makes only a small number of trips during the year.

state business. Usually, but not always, the granting of such favors is contingent upon the conferring of reciprocal privileges by the other States concerned. Typical of the States in this group are Massachusetts, New York, California, and Ohio.

At the other extreme, a second group of States requires practically all out-of-State trucks that come across the line to register and pay a fee, or if this is not done, to pay higher ton-mile taxes than trucks having only domestic licenses. States illustrative of this group are Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.

Many of the States have laws which lie between these two extremes. Typically, they have strict general requirements as to the licensing of out-ofState vehicles which they appreciably liberalize through special reciprocity agreements with certain States. Representative States in this group are Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia.

Especially if only a few trips are made, the cost of securing an out-of-State license may place a considerable burden on the foreign trucker. The out-of-State farmer who wishes to enter Wyoming with his 1-ton truck is required, according to the regulations of that State, to pay the annual fee of $7.50. If his truck weighs 2 tons the fee is $30, and for heavier vehicles the fee is graduated steeply upward.

If the truck were

In addition to the license fee the trucker entering Wyoming must pay a county registration fee, the amount of which depends upon the factory price and the age of the truck. Thus, on a new $1,000 truck he would pay $18. in its fourth year of service he would pay $6. Finally, if the trucker engages in "for-hire" business, additional fees are collected and a mileage tax must be paid of 2 mills per revenue ton-mile.

Certain States that require registration of outof-State trucks permit outside trucks to enter the State for a short period on payment of some fraction of the annual fee. Arizona will give one short-time permit per year, the amount of the fee depending on the length of time for which it is issued and the weight of the truck, but in no case is the fee less than $3.50. Oklahoma has a somewhat similar system, but in addition permits nonresident carriers, under certain special condi

tions, to make occasional trips of not more than 72 hours in duration without payment of any registration fee. Such a truck owner, however, must pay a mileage tax to the State of Oklahoma which is graduated according to the weight of the truck and is much higher than the rate charged similar trucks having Oklahoma licenses. It may also be noted that the nonresident owner of a trailer taking out an Oklahoma license must, unless the vehicle is less than a year old, pay appreciably more to secure registration than the resident owner whose trailer has been continuously registered in Oklahoma.

Although no statistical measure is available, there is abundant testimony to the fact that registration and ton-mile taxes are an important discouragement to to interstate transportation. Not infrequently farmers are led to protest against the requirements of their own State on out-of-State trucks. Thus, for example, potato growers in Colorado in August 1935 appealed to the State Public Utilities Commission to relax its requirements so that out-of-State truckers could come in and move their crop. When their petition was rejected and serious losses threatened, they offered to pay the tax themselves if outside truckers would come into the State. 14

Similar conditions prevailed recently in South Carolina. A conference that was held at Columbia, S. C., between a delegation of peach growers and certain members of the State legislature, is described as follows:

"The conference was the outgrowth of difficulties encountered by peach growers during last season's peach harvest when State highway patrolmen began enforcing truck licensing regulations against trucks from States which did not have reciprocal agreements with South Carolina, mainly those from Tennessee.

"Peach growers claimed that they had suffered large losses as the result of the enforcement of the regulations against foreign trucks, and means for remedying the situation were discussed at a meeting with the county delegation here last week. Sentiment at the meeting was that trucks coming into the State to buy perishable produce should be exempted from licensing requirements

14 The New York Packer, August 31, 1935, p. 16.

regardless of whether South Carolina has reciprocal agreements with the States in which they are registered." 15

Many letters have been received at the Bureau of Agricultural Economics testifying to the restrictive effect of license requirements. The following excerpts are taken from letters received from what are believed to be well-informed local sources:

From Connecticut:16

"Some of our growers have run into serious difficulties in trucking farm products into Maine, because Maine requires that all trucks of more than a ton and a half capacity must be registered in Maine and pay their regular license fee."

From Kansas:17

"I would say that we are having interminable trouble in farm truck transportation between our neighboring States. It is reported that the laws and rules and regulations, particularly of Oklahoma and Missouri, almost make it prohibitive for Kansas farm trucks to cross the line." From South Dakota:18

"The truckers have very often been held up because of the fact that they did not have a State license in addition to the one in which they resided, and such practices have resulted to the detriment of our stockmen. A commercial trucker may be in a position to take out a trucker's license in more than the one State, but this is not true of the farmer who does his own trucking."

From Illinois:19

"The chief handicap in the interstate movement of livestock to this market rests in the lack of reciprocal agreements concerning licenses and the abolition of mileage taxes. Illinois and Missouri have complete reciprocity on trucks hauling farm products on a so-called 'farm to market and market to farm movement.' If this reciprocity could be extended to other States, and Illinois is taking a more lenient view

15 Ibid., February 12, 1938. For a similar situation which recently developed in Arkansas in connection with the moving of their peach crop see The New York Packer, June 11, 1938. 16 March 9, 1938.

17 February 23, 1938.

18 March 7, 1938.

10 March 30, 1938.

in this respect, it would remove many handicaps to interstate traffic."

As suggested in the last letter quoted, States have often entered into reciprocity agreements by which each State honors the automobile license plates issued by the other States entering the agreements. In certain sections of the country these reciprocity agreements in respect to automobile registration have at times and over limited areas done much to remove barriers to interstate motor-truck movement. But even under the best of circumstances, difficulties and uncertainties remain. Not only is reciprocity usually limited merely to registration fees and not extended to other important considerations such as ton-mile taxes and permissible size of trucks, but reciprocity agreements may break down at any time because of action by the legislature or the State highway authority.

The result of the break-down of a reciprocity agreement is very likely to be a "border war," which, temporarily at least, ties up interstate traffic and brings serious loss both to truckers and to producers. The complete story of the socalled motor-vehicle "border wars" cannot be told here, but table 4 suggests a picture of some of these which have disrupted interstate commerce in the period 1931-37.20 Some of these wars, like that between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have flared up for a few days, and then died out completely. Others like that between Illinois and Wisconsin, have smouldered for years, with occasional violent outbreaks.

The term "war" is, of course, used only figuratively. However, conditions do sometimes approach battle conditions. Thus, when Maine seized a New York truck driver, one Leo Jubb, in June 1933, and forced him to pay a license fee of $75 on his truck, New York retaliated by holding two Maine truck drivers for not having New York license plates.21 In a KansasNebraska dispute at about the same time a

20 As newspaper sources have had to be used here as the chief source of information, there may be some exaggeration or distortion. However, it is believed that the picture shown here is substantially accurate.

21 New York Times, June 30, 1933.

Nebraska constable was reported to have opened fire on a Kansas truck.22 Most border conflicts have not involved the use of such extreme measures but wholesale arrests have been common and serious interference with interstate commerce has resulted.

Sometimes the border wars have been followed by mutual concessions and reciprocity agreements. In other cases reciprocity has been abandoned and laws that are in part, at least, retaliatory in character, have found a seemingly permanent place on the statute books.

To the cost of the out-of-State licenses and taxes and the danger of outbreak of border wars must be added a further difficulty-the time and trouble involved in conforming to State registration requirements. Not the least of the trucker's difficulties is the necessity of informing himself in regard to the law. This is not always easy, for some of the State laws are complex and many of them are subject to frequent change, especially in respect to reciprocity provisions. Unusually strict provisions in respect to insurance or the posting of bonds may be a further discouraging factor for the out-of-State trucker.

Even with the requirements of the law clearly in mind the interstate trucker must plan his trip carefully in advance. For travel in certain. States, he must write for and receive a permit before he crosses the State line, or on crossing the State boundary he must proceed directly to the proper authorities and there fill out such blanks and pay such fees as are required before proceeding farther into the State.

Thus a private carrier whose truck is registered in South Dakota can make three trips into North Dakota in any one year without having to take out a regular North Dakota license. However, he must buy an identification plate which costs $5, and if he penetrates farther into the State than 5 miles from the border, or if his trip exceeds 10 miles even if within this 5-mile zone, he must secure a permit from the North Dakota Board of Railroad

"World-Herald, Omaha, Nebraska, June 28, 1933.

Commissioners and pay a mileage tax that is determined by the net weight of his truck.

The private carrier who plans to take his truck into Alabama need make no application before he enters the State. But once the State line is crossed, he must go directly to a county judge of probate in the first county he enters and there secure a permit. If he is carrying goods that are actually his own property he may receive a 5-day permit for $1.50. The extra time and travel required to get the permit from the judge of probate may be more of a handicap than the fee. The fees are much higher if the carrier is transporting goods for another. In that case he must appear before the judge, pay $5.50 for a permit to bring the goods into the State, pay an additional $5.50 to take goods out of the State, and, finally, pay a mileage tax 50 percent higher than is required of trucks regularly registered inAlabama.

SIZE, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER REGULATIONS For various purposes, but primarily to promote safety on the highways and to prevent damage to roads and bridges, State legislatures have been extremely active in passing laws and authorizing administrative regulations having to do with the weight, size, equipment, and insurance of motor vehicles. The nonuniformity of these laws has constituted an appreciable hindrance to interstate commerce. Moreover, the limits set, as for example those on the size and weight of motor vehicles, may be so low as to prevent such longdistance hauling.

Every State in the Union has established a maximum gross or net weight for motor vehicles. But the maximums permitted vary greatly from State to State and the methods of weight determination or limitation are manifold. Certain States determine permissible weights by formulas that take into account the distance in feet be