(1) That granted motor transportation for hire is a public utility, public interest can best be served by unrestricted competition and complete freedom from regulation in which none but the fittest can survive. This policy they contend will yield to passengers and shippers the maximum of results with the minimum cost.
They deny any analogy between motor vehicle common carriers and railroad and trolley transportation agencies, pointing out that the latter by virtue of private ownership of franchises, rights of way, road beds, tracks and terminals have an exclusive and monopolistic control over all transportation on their routes. Motor track operators, on the other hand, even where granted a monopoly of transportation for hire over a certain prescribed highway or portion thereof cannot deny the use of that highway to others who wish for themselves or as private carriers to transport persons or property over those same routes.
Finally, they point out that governmental regulation of rail and trolley common carriers came after these agencies had abused their rights and privileges and through pools, stifling of competition, exorbitant increase of rates, discrimination, stock watering, etc., made ‘it necessary for the public in self-protection to subject them to control. By the very nature of the service, these evils are impossible with motor transportation, since the road is free to the use of everyone and motor vehicles, the medium for transportation over the roads, are quickly, cheaply and in unlimited numbers available for everyone.
(2) Since the obvious outcome of the first argument advanced against state regulation is “cut-throat” competition between various forms of transportation attempting to serve a certain territory and per se between the motor transportation companies themselves operating in competition over certain highway routes, the opponents of state regulation cannot escape the query whether they are willing to face the logical consequences of such a struggle. Without hesitation they answer that wherever rail, trolley or any other form of transportation for hire cannot stand up before a newer and better form, public interest demands that it should give way; likewise within that newer and better form of transportation, the rule should be survival of none but the most efficient and economical agencies. They are confident that even though such a policy may mean the destruction at times of more or less invested capital, as it did when rail and inland water transportation first came into acute competition, the final eco-nomic benefits to the community as a whole will many times compensate for the loss involved.
(3) As for shouldering upon motor transportation for hire financial and other burdens which it should rightly carry, opponents of state regulation say that legislative bodies have not heretofore found it necessary to establish such control in order to determine the weight limits for motor vehicles used as common carriers; their registration fees and other charges; their liability to the public for injury to persons or damage to property; etc. If this is all that is involved, it is not sufficient to warrant almost unlimited regulation in all other respects by a state agency.
(4) Lastly, those against state regulation believe that the natural working out of economic laws will do more to stabilize the motor transportation for hire business than extensive interference on the part of governmental agencies of any sort. They feel that the proposition is paternalistic and will result either in discrimination in favor of one or more types of transportation, and against all the rest, or else that it will promote monopolistic advantages for certain motor transportation companies and that through it all the traveling and shipping public will pay the cost.”
Along the same line, is a statement of the Governor of Wisconsin in a report accompanying his veto of a measure passed by the Wisconsin legislature for the regulation of motor vehicles. The Governor says:
“My objection to this bill is fundamental. Jitneys and busses may be operated by anyone upon the public highways and streets, and therefore there is no opportunity to create a monopoly. Free competition prevails, and thus rates and services are regulated by the natural law of competition. It is quite different with respect to a street railway, an interurban railway, or a railroad. When either of those occupies a territory, there is no opportunity for a competitive, like system to come into that territory. There is a limitation on the number of street railways or interurban lines that may occupy the field for transportation, and so ,the transportation companies hold the field against all others; and the reason for regulating them is because of the fact that they possess monopoly, affording them the right, in the absence of regulation, to arbitrarily discriminate, grant rebates and other special favors, charge an excessive fare, and give inadequate service. The legislature, therefore, wisely provided for the regulation of such monopolies. The motor vehicles have come to stay; they are the beginning of a transportation system about which it is dangerous to prophesy. They may in the future be displaced by more modern systems of transportation. The old canal companies fought for their existence when the railroads came, but the building of railroads could not be obstructed merely for the purpose of preserving the canal companies. To what extent transportation by motor will displace other forms of transportation, I need not discuss, but I do not believe that it is any part of the state’s duty to obstruct or hinder that means of conveyance. So long as the motor vehicles do not possess a monopoly, there is no ground for regulating them, except to protect the safety and health of the traveling public. To regulate them from the standpoint of protecting some other business, is to interfere with free competition, not in the interests of the general public, but for the special protection of some specific business.”
On the other hand, the arguments in favor of state regulation of automobile carriers, also summarized in the pamphlet of the Motor Vehicle Conference Committee above referred to, are worthy of consideration. Those who contend for state regulation say it is necessary:
(1) Because motor transportation for hire is a public utility and as such should be regulated along with other public vehicles, so that travellers and shippers by such means can be made sure of safe, prompt, regular, adequate, efficient and economical service.
(2) So that, in all cases where motor vehicle common carriers come, or are likely to come, into ruinous competition with other common carriers, the state can step in and determine whether public convenience and necessity require such competition, and save, if desirable, the pre-existing agencies of transportation.
(3) In order to shoulder upon the motor vehicle common carrier obligations, financial and otherwise, in return for the rights given it to operate for a profit over all or certain highways within a state, especially so since the highways are built and maintained by the public. In some cases, these rights take the form of valuable franchises which virtually grant monopolistic privileges over certain routes.
(4) For the purpose of eliminating the irresponsible, so-called ‘fly-by-night 7 companies and individuals who, while under- going certain destruction for themselves, pull down with the ruin well managed motor transportation agencies which render a real public service and are entitled to a reasonable return on their investments and a stabilization of their business.”
“Whatever the arguments pro and con, it must be recognized that state regulation of the automobile carrier is already well established in many jurisdictions, but not in all.
Perhaps it should be stated at this point that regulation by public authorities was inaugurated in this 7 country for the purpose of protecting the people against unreasonable rates and discriminatory practices that could not otherwise be controlled under circumstances of monopoly in the public service. For that reason the steam railroads of the country were placed under the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. For the same reason, the various public service corporations operating in the different cities have been placed under the regulation of State Public Service Commissions. In a few instances, Municipal Public Service Commissions have been established with the like objects in view. Therefore, it may be well argued that when monopolistic conditions which public regulation was established to control, disappear and are replaced by competitive conditions, public regulation should either cease or should embrace all of the conrpetitors and their operations. The automobile has introduced competition into the entire field of transportation, both between automobile lines, electric railways, steam railroads, and all other similar agencies. It is not economical, practical, or sound that one form of transportation, while in active competition with another, should be burdened with the exactions of public regulation as to its rates, the character of its service, the upkeep of its equipment, its accounting methods, its obligations to maintain certain portions of the highways, etc., while the other transportation agency operates without any such restrictions and without any of the obligations imposed by regulation. If the jitney or motor bus or truck is not regulated, it cannot be said that the btreet railway operating in the same territory enjoys monopolistic conditions. If, therefore, a condition of true competition has been created in the field of transportation by the advent of the automobile, that great economic factor competition might perhaps be permitted to determine the destinies of existing transportation facilities and each agency allowed complete freedom from any regulation whatsoever; but if a policy of regulation is to be adopted, all of the transportation agencies should be brought under it and their destinies determined under conditions of equity, which will mete out to each its just portion of the burdens, restrictions, and advantages.
State regulation of automobile carriers will, of course, afford them the same protection that is accorded other utilities, namely,  the recognition of their respective rights against competition in localities where they have become established, rates that should yield a fair return upon their investment, stabilization of their financial conditions by requiring proper accounting methods, tc. Just regulation offers advantages to the carriers as well as to the public.
As before indicated, the prevailing view in this country appears to be in favor of direct regulation by state laws, state Commissions and municipalities, rather than by competition. Already we find that regulatory action by direct legislation or otherwise has been attempted or made effective in the following jurisdictions: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
In the following states, the regulatory Boards or Commissions Lave acted or endeavored to act under powers directly conferred or assumed: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Regulation by the municipalities exists in some form in practically all states.
The scope of regulation by existing statutes is indicated by the variety of subjects mentioned for supervision, which include: qualifications of drivers, licenses, service requirements, sanitation, certificates of convenience and necessity, bonds for good faith, maintenance of brakes, use of chains, accounting methods, discontinuance of service, insurance and indemnity, use of intoxicating liquor, loading standards, markers and signs, references and rebates, railroad crossings, reports to regulating authority, routes, safety rules, sale or transfer of property, maintenance schedules, standardsjof service, soliciting of passengers, regulation of speed, speedometers, use of tobacco, trailers, valuation of property, reporting of accidents, agreements with other utilities, securing municipal authority, compensation for wear ancLtear of pavements, transportation of explosives, maintenance of equipment, interruption of service, issuance of stocks and bonds, lights, lost articles, means of egress, obligation to carry passengers, operating regulations, penalties, rates and tariffs, reports to Commissions, stops, substitute motor vehicles, issuance of tickets, provisions regarding tires.
A classified review of the various requirements now effective is set forth in Chapter II. The rulings and policies of the state Commissions as applied in actual controversies are given in Chapter III. Many subjects not specifically included in the statutes or in the general rules and regulations of the Commissions are thus expounded. Chapters II and III therefore furnish a complete exposition of state and Commission policy and practice, as applied to the supervision of this new transportation agency.
No effort has been made in this volume to cover the numerous municipal regulatory ordinances and the multifarious local police regulations which have to do with safety of operation, routing, etc., but which add nothing in principle that is not fully covered by the statutory and Commission regulations. In fact, much of municipal regulation has now been superseded by State Commission regulation. There is as yet no Federal regulation of automobile carriers, although some of their routes cross state lines.
As has been pointed out, all classes of automobiles, whether used for private or public purposes are under some sort of regulation; but up to the present time, Commission supervision in most states has been limited to those engaged in the carriage of persons or property for hire over designated routes, between fixed termini on regular schedules. Taxicab operators, while not operating over designated routes or between fixed termini, are nevertheless carriers for hire, and as such are subject to municipal supervision in all states, including even the regulation of their fares, in some instances. In several states, taxicabs as well as other motor transportation vehicles are under the supervision of state Commissions, either by special legislative action or because the Commission has been given jurisdiction over all common carriers.
In conclusion, it is clear that the development of automobile transportation as a public service, along with the present policy of state regulation of public utilities, has resulted logically in the inclusion of this new means of conveyance within the regulatory sphere in a considerable portion of the country. Whether the automobile has introduced a competitive condition which should not be subject to public regulation has given rise to a conflict of opinion, but whether competition is suffered to flourish without restraint by governmental agencies or not, it would seem to be only fair that all competing transportation agencies be treated alike and the destinies of each worked out with equity and justice, both to the proprietors and the public, under one theory or the other either free competition without any regulation whatsoever, except as to matters of safety, etc.; or else public regulation which will subject each agency to the same relative burdens and responsibilities, and afford each the same benefits and opportunities.
The automobile era in this country began in 1895. On September 15th of that year, George B. Selden, a young attorney of Rochester, New York, obtained the first patent for the internal combustion engine, as applied to the propulsion of a vehicle, although he had perfected a working model of a motor vehicle as early as 1877. In 1896 Barnum and Bailey, the famous circus proprietors, announced that they would exhibit throughout the country a horseless carriage. By the end of 1899 there were 5,000 automobiles in operation, 3,700 of which were produced that year. During 1920, more than two million cars, valued in excess of two billions,’ were manufactured. The registration for the year 1921 showed approximately 10,000,000 motor vehicles in operation. These figures indicate the rapid development and magnitude of the automobile industry in the United States.
At first the motor vehicle was in the class of luxuries, being thought of primarily as a means of conveyance for the rich. So great was the popular demand for the new invention however, that production on a large scale was soon undertaken. Enormous strides were made in methods of manufacture, standardization of equipment, and the perfection of materials so that, within ten years after its introduction, the automobile began to be com- monly used by persons of moderate means, although chiefly for private purposes. During the last ten years, its commercial possibilities have also been extensively promoted, with the result that the motor bus and motor truck have now become recognized agencies for the carriage of persons and property. Thus, within two decades, the automobile has developed from a luxury available only to a few for pleasurable purposes into a vehicle generally employed by nearly all classes of persons both for private and public transportation purposes. In fact the automobile has become a necessity in the domestic and commercial life of the nation.
It should not be forgotten that when the motor propelled vehicle came into existence, the country was divided in opinion as to whether the various agencies furnishing public service, such as light, heat, power, water, gas, telephone and electric traction companies, or in other words, all public utilities commonly thought” of as natural monopolies, should be placed under definite state regulation with reference to their rates, service, and general operation, or whether some other form of regulation would be desirable. This question was debated for many years, and finally, following the example afforded by the Railroad Commissions of the different states in the regulation of steam carriers, a general movement was launched for the inclusion of all public utility companieswithin the state Commission plan of regulation. Beginning in 1907, about twelve years after the advent of the automobile, and during the period of its rapid development, we find in several states, amendments to the Rail- road Commission laws extending the jurisdiction of those bodies over all types of public service. Since that time, the new regulatory system has been so generally extended that today in every state except Delaware, there is a public service or other Commission having control over some of the operations of certain utilities. In many states the Commissions have regulatory powers over practically all of the operations of all public service agencies.
The automobile industry in this country has, therefore, grown up and developed contemporaneously with the growth and development of the system of utility regulation now in force. Accordingly, it is not surprising to find that when the motor vehicle took its place in the transportation field, first, as the jitney, and later, as the bus and truck transporting both persons and property for hire, it was recognized as a public utility and placed under public supervision. In fact the automobile, as now operated for hire, has all the attributes of a public service, and in legal phraseology would clearly be classed at common law as a “common carrier.” Consequently, it is only logical that the city authorities should have passed ordinances regulating its operation, or that the state Commissions in many states should have extended their jurisdiction to control its rates and service, or that regulatory legislation should have been passed by state legislatures, either directly affecting this new public service, or placing it under the supervision of the existing state Commission.

While we are not here concerned with privately operated automobiles, it may be said in passing that even, these have been placed under certain restrictions. The owners are obliged to secure operators’ licenses and are bound to respect numerous requirements as to lights, tags, speed, signals, and general use of the streets and highways. It is about the automobile used / for the transportation of persons and property for hire, that the important problems of public regulation are arising, and our investigation is directed only into that field.
It is apparent from the foregoing, that the general employment of the automobile for the transportation of persons and property for hire has brought it naturally within the field of industry affected with a public interest. All of the earmarks of a public calling are present. The operators who offer their transportation services for hire to all who apply, thus classify themselves as common carriers by immemorial custom. It cannot be said, therefore/that the regulation of the operations of the automobile carriers, whether by city ordinances, state laws, or State Public Service Commissions, indicates any degree of antagonism toward the industry or an effort to hamper it or to impose upon it any unjust burden. There have been, however, many arguments advanced in an effort to show that carriers by automobile should not be subject to state regulation. These arguments are summarized in a pamphlet entitled “State Regulation of Motor Vehicle Common Carriers’ 7 issued in 1922 by the Motor Vehicle Conference Committee, affiliated with the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, New York City, and are as follows:

Opponents of state regulation maintain:

(1) That granted motor transportation for hire is a public utility, public interest can best be served by unrestricted competition and complete freedom from regulation in which none but the fittest can survive. This policy they contend will yield to passengers and shippers the maximum of results with the minimum cost.

They deny any analogy between motor vehicle common carriers and railroad and trolley transportation agencies, pointing out that the latter by virtue of private ownership of franchises, rights of way, road beds, tracks and terminals have an exclusive and monopolistic control over all transportation on their routes. Motor track operators, on the other hand, even where granted a monopoly of transportation for hire over a certain prescribed highway or portion thereof cannot deny the use of that highway to others who wish for themselves or as private carriers to transport persons or property over those same routes.

Finally, they point out that governmental regulation of rail and trolley common carriers came after these agencies had abused their rights and privileges and through pools, stifling of competition, exorbitant increase of rates, discrimination, stock watering, etc., made ‘it necessary for the public in self-protection to subject them to control. By the very nature of the service, these evils are impossible with motor transportation, since the road is free to the use of everyone and motor vehicles, the medium for transportation over the roads, are quickly, cheaply and in unlimited numbers available for everyone. </p>

(2) Since the obvious outcome of the first argument advanced against state regulation is “cut-throat” competition between various forms of transportation attempting to serve a certain territory and per se between the motor transportation companies themselves operating in competition over certain highway routes, the opponents of state regulation cannot escape the query whether they are willing to face the logical consequences of such a struggle. Without hesitation they answer that wherever rail, trolley or any other form of transportation for hire cannot stand up before a newer and better form, public interest demands that it should give way; likewise within that newer and better form of transportation, the rule should be survival of none but the most efficient and economical agencies. They are confident that even though such a policy may mean the destruction at times of more or less invested capital, as it did when rail and inland water transportation first came into acute competition, the final eco-nomic benefits to the community as a whole will many times compensate for the loss involved.
(3) As for shouldering upon motor transportation for hire financial and other burdens which it should rightly carry, opponents of state regulation say that legislative bodies have not heretofore found it necessary to establish such control in order to determine the weight limits for motor vehicles used as common carriers; their registration fees and other charges; their liability to the public for injury to persons or damage to property; etc. If this is all that is involved, it is not sufficient to warrant almost unlimited regulation in all other respects by a state agency.
(4) Lastly, those against state regulation believe that the natural working out of economic laws will do more to stabilize the motor transportation for hire business than extensive interference on the part of governmental agencies of any sort. They feel that the proposition is paternalistic and will result either in discrimination in favor of one or more types of transportation, and against all the rest, or else that it will promote monopolistic advantages for certain motor transportation companies and that through it all the traveling and shipping public will pay the cost.”
Along the same line, is a statement of the Governor of Wisconsin in a report accompanying his veto of a measure passed by the Wisconsin legislature for the regulation of motor vehicles. The Governor says:
“My objection to this bill is fundamental. Jitneys and busses may be operated by anyone upon the public highways and streets, and therefore there is no opportunity to create a monopoly. Free competition prevails, and thus rates and services are regulated by the natural law of competition. It is quite different with respect to a street railway, an interurban railway, or a railroad. When either of those occupies a territory, there is no opportunity for a competitive, like system to come into that territory. There is a limitation on the number of street railways or interurban lines that may occupy the field for transportation, and so ,the transportation companies hold the field against all others; and the reason for regulating them is because of the fact that they possess monopoly, affording them the right, in the absence of regulation, to arbitrarily discriminate, grant rebates and other special favors, charge an excessive fare, and give inadequate service. The legislature, therefore, wisely provided for the regulation of such monopolies. The motor vehicles have come to stay; they are the beginning of a transportation system about which it is dangerous to prophesy. They may in the future be displaced by more modern systems of transportation. The old canal companies fought for their existence when the railroads came, but the building of railroads could not be obstructed merely for the purpose of preserving the canal companies. To what extent transportation by motor will displace other forms of transportation, I need not discuss, but I do not believe that it is any part of the state’s duty to obstruct or hinder that means of conveyance. So long as the motor vehicles do not possess a monopoly, there is no ground for regulating them, except to protect the safety and health of the traveling public. To regulate them from the standpoint of protecting some other business, is to interfere with free competition, not in the interests of the general public, but for the special protection of some specific business.”
On the other hand, the arguments in favor of state regulation of automobile carriers, also summarized in the pamphlet of the Motor Vehicle Conference Committee above referred to, are worthy of consideration. Those who contend for state regulation say it is necessary:
(1) Because motor transportation for hire is a public utility and as such should be regulated along with other public vehicles, so that travellers and shippers by such means can be made sure of safe, prompt, regular, adequate, efficient and economical service.

;(2) So that, in all cases where motor vehicle common carriers come, or are likely to come, into ruinous competition with other common carriers, the state can step in and determine whether public convenience and necessity require such competition, and save, if desirable, the pre-existing agencies of transportation.
(3) In order to shoulder upon the motor vehicle common carrier obligations, financial and otherwise, in return for the rights given it to operate for a profit over all or certain highways within a state, especially so since the highways are built and maintained by the public. In some cases, these rights take the form of valuable franchises which virtually grant monopolistic privileges over certain routes.

&(4) For the purpose of eliminating the irresponsible, so-called ‘fly-by-night 7 companies and individuals who, while under- going certain destruction for themselves, pull down with the ruin well managed motor transportation agencies which render a real public service and are entitled to a reasonable return on their investments and a stabilization of their business.”
“Whatever the arguments pro and con, it must be recognized that state regulation of the automobile carrier is already well established in many jurisdictions, but not in all.

Perhaps it should be stated at this point that regulation by public authorities was inaugurated in this 7 country for the purpose of protecting the people against unreasonable rates and discriminatory practices that could not otherwise be controlled under circumstances of monopoly in the public service. For that reason the steam railroads of the country were placed under the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. For the same reason, the various public service corporations operating in the different cities have been placed under the regulation of State Public Service Commissions. In a few instances, Municipal Public Service Commissions have been established with the like objects in view. Therefore, it may be well argued that when monopolistic conditions which public regulation was established to control, disappear and are replaced by competitive conditions, public regulation should either cease or should embrace all of the conrpetitors and their operations. The automobile has introduced competition into the entire field of transportation, both between automobile lines, electric railways, steam railroads, and all other similar agencies. It is not economical, practical, or sound that one form of transportation, while in active competition with another, should be burdened with the exactions of public regulation as to its rates, the character of its service, the upkeep of its equipment, its accounting methods, its obligations to maintain certain portions of the highways, etc., while the other transportation agency operates without any such restrictions and without any of the obligations imposed by regulation. If the jitney or motor bus or truck is not regulated, it cannot be said that the btreet railway operating in the same territory enjoys monopolistic conditions. If, therefore, a condition of true competition has been created in the field of transportation by the advent of the automobile, that great economic factor competition might perhaps be permitted to determine the destinies of existing transportation facilities and each agency allowed complete freedom from any regulation whatsoever; but if a policy of regulation is to be adopted, all of the transportation agencies should be brought under it and their destinies determined under conditions of equity, which will mete out to each its just portion of the burdens, restrictions, and advantages.
State regulation of automobile carriers will, of course, afford them the same protection that is accorded other utilities, namely,  the recognition of their respective rights against competition in localities where they have become established, rates that should yield a fair return upon their investment, stabilization of their financial conditions by requiring proper accounting methods, tc. Just regulation offers advantages to the carriers as well as to the public.
As before indicated, the prevailing view in this country appears to be in favor of direct regulation by state laws, state Commissions and municipalities, rather than by competition. Already we find that regulatory action by direct legislation or otherwise has been attempted or made effective in the following jurisdictions: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
In the following states, the regulatory Boards or Commissions Lave acted or endeavored to act under powers directly conferred or assumed: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Regulation by the municipalities exists in some form in practically all states.

The scope of regulation by existing statutes is indicated by the variety of subjects mentioned for supervision, which include: qualifications of drivers, licenses, service requirements, sanitation, certificates of convenience and necessity, bonds for good faith, maintenance of brakes, use of chains, accounting methods, discontinuance of service, insurance and indemnity, use of intoxicating liquor, loading standards, markers and signs, references and rebates, railroad crossings, reports to regulating authority, routes, safety rules, sale or transfer of property, maintenance schedules, standardsjof service, soliciting of passengers, regulation of speed, speedometers, use of tobacco, trailers, valuation of property, reporting of accidents, agreements with other utilities, securing municipal authority, compensation for wear ancLtear of pavements, transportation of explosives, maintenance of equipment, interruption of service, issuance of stocks and bonds, lights, lost articles, means of egress, obligation to carry passengers, operating regulations, penalties, rates and tariffs, reports to Commissions, stops, substitute motor vehicles, issuance of tickets, provisions regarding tires.
A classified review of the various requirements now effective is set forth in Chapter II. The rulings and policies of the state Commissions as applied in actual controversies are given in Chapter III. Many subjects not specifically included in the statutes or in the general rules and regulations of the Commissions are thus expounded. Chapters II and III therefore furnish a complete exposition of state and Commission policy and practice, as applied to the supervision of this new transportation agency.

No effort has been made in this volume to cover the numerous municipal regulatory ordinances and the multifarious local police regulations which have to do with safety of operation, routing, etc., but which add nothing in principle that is not fully covered by the statutory and Commission regulations. In fact, much of municipal regulation has now been superseded by State Commission regulation. There is as yet no Federal regulation of automobile carriers, although some of their routes cross state lines.
As has been pointed out, all classes of automobiles, whether used for private or public purposes are under some sort of regulation; but up to the present time, Commission supervision in most states has been limited to those engaged in the carriage of persons or property for hire over designated routes, between fixed termini on regular schedules. Taxicab operators, while not operating over designated routes or between fixed termini, are nevertheless carriers for hire, and as such are subject to municipal supervision in all states, including even the regulation of their fares, in some instances. In several states, taxicabs as well as other motor transportation vehicles are under the supervision of state Commissions, either by special legislative action or because the Commission has been given jurisdiction over all common carriers.
In conclusion, it is clear that the development of automobile transportation as a public service, along with the present policy of state regulation of public utilities, has resulted logically in the inclusion of this new means of conveyance within the regulatory sphere in a considerable portion of the country. Whether the automobile has introduced a competitive condition which should not be subject to public regulation has given rise to a conflict of opinion, but whether competition is suffered to flourish without restraint by governmental agencies or not, it would seem to be only fair that all competing transportation agencies be treated alike and the destinies of each worked out with equity and justice, both to the proprietors and the public, under one theory or the other either free competition without any regulation whatsoever, except as to matters of safety, etc.; or else public regulation which will subject each agency to the same relative burdens and responsibilities, and afford each the same benefits and opportunities.