upr000330 71

San Pedro, L os A ngeles & Salt Lake R ailroad Company 1" - * I'::?;;: OFFICE OF GENERAL A T T O R N E Y T. E. GIBBON, Ge n e r a l C o unsel. C. O. WHITTEMORE, Gen er al Atto r n e y. Salt Lake City, Utah, Aug. 3, 1906, T. IS, Gibbon, Esq. , General Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal. Dear sif: Your favor of July 31 st transmitting two. copies of questions propounded by the Committee of Traffic Men to the Committee of Counsel, and answers of Committee of Counsel thereto, relating to the Interstate Commerce Law,dene at the recent meeting of Traffic Men and Counsel held at Chicago, has been received, and I wish to thank you very much for your courtesy in sending the same, as it is indeed a very interesting document. You can do a further favor by advising me in relation to question 21 on page 8 and the answer thereto. I am not certain just what provi­sion of the law the Committee of Counsel had in mind when it answered this question, by saying that such claims ageare included in the question cannot be settled merely as a matter of policy. It seems to me that the Committee might have had in mind Sections- 2 and 3 of the Interstate Com­merce Act, pages 8 and 9 of the act as published by The Railway Age (Sec­tions 2 and 3, pages 813 and 816, Vol. 3 Sederal Statutes Annotated), the next to the last paragraph of section 6 as amended by the Hepburn Bill, page 12 of The Railway Age’s publication, Section 10, page 15 of such publication, (section 10, page 835, Vol. 3 Sederal Statutes Annotated) and Section 1 of the Elkins Act as amended by the Hepbulm Bill, page 38 of The Railway Age publication. I should like very much to know just exactly what provision the Committee did have in raind in formulating the