NINETEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART VII 429 



Again, Mr. McAdoo made au order for manufacturers and industrial 

 plants, if an industry had built a track to a certain part of the road, that 

 the industry would have to maintain it, and the railroad would own it. 

 Perhaps someone may think I am stretching that a little. Here it is: 



"Generally speaking, the industry shall pay for and maintain, and the 

 railroad company shall own that part of the track from the clearance point 

 to the right-of-way line." 



It was seven or eight months after that order was made when it was 

 changed. Again, Mr. McAdoo made an order that you have got to pay 

 your freight bill within forty-eight hours, or else put up a bond. Would 

 that not be nice for you and me dealing with other folks, whenever we 

 sold anything or performed any service? Imagine Clifford Thorne saying 

 to the Corn Belt Meat Producers: You have got to p'ay my salary within 

 forty-eight hours, or you must give a bond for it. That is not the way 

 men deal with each other, unless they are despots. 



Then another instruction issued by the Director General was that 

 damage claims on live stock should not be paid because your live stock 

 didn't reach the market you were trying to get, if it arrived within 

 twenty-four hours of the time it should get there. 



Here is another illustration, on the subject of personal injury claims: 

 "This does not mean that verdicts based upon prejudice or passion shall 

 'be paid." Now, after you have had your trial and judgment is rendered 

 and a motion for a new trial denied or not made, you have got your 

 verdict, the Director General reserves the right to determine whether the 

 verdict was granted under passion or prejudice — a department of the gov- 

 ernment superior to our courts, the common law and the statutes. 



I am going to show you where, in effect, he repealed the Carmack 

 amendment. He was not modest in his efforts; sometimes I think the 

 kaiser is jealous of McAdoo; the "crown prince" of this country made one 

 mistake when he took over the railroads. 



One portion of the Carmack amendment provided when you bring a 

 case for loss and damage, for instance, against the originating carrier, 

 you do not have to prove when the loss occurred, but that carrier may 

 look to the subsequent carriers. Now that was for the protection of the 

 shippers of the country against a situation that had become almost in- 

 tolerable. Congress said: It will not be necessary to prove where the 

 loss occurred, if you sue the originating carrier. Along comes Mr. McAdoo 

 and issues an order that hereafter, when you begin a case against the 

 railroads, you must begin where the loss occurred, or else where the 

 plaintiff resided at the time the action accrued. 



What is the practical effect of that? If you didn't live within the 

 jurisdiction of the court where the shipment originated, you couldn't 

 bring the action against the originating carrier, unless the loss occurred 

 there. Suppose it is a damage case, for delay, and the shipment moved 

 to New York, how are you going to prove where it occurred? Suppose it 

 was a case of theft, how are you going to find where it occurred on that 

 journey? 



Many people say that order is not valid. In fact, a judge of the 

 supreme court of New York last Saturday issued an injunction or made 



