WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION 359

107,214 cars during the 1925 crop movement season, to the production of which
Mexican labor contributed largely, there were produced in the region covered by
the schedule 150,432 cars of the fruits and vegetables which it includes. All of
these cars (except those moving by boat) moved as revenue tonnage over the
railroads of the West and Southwest. A large portion of them were delivered to
connecting carriers, and in the ordinary course of commerce these cars, laden
with the product of labor largely Mexican, were distributed over the whole of the
United States. The extent of this movement is illustrated by the fact that in
recent proceedings involving rates on California deciduous fruits about 450
carriers made themselves parties.
The figures which have been recited fall far short of a comprehensive reflection
of the enormous tonnage created in substantial measure by Mexican labor. For
instance, they do not include cotton, of which 315,000 bales were produced, in
New Mexico, Arizona, and California in 1926; they do not include livestock or
sheep or wool; they do not include broomcorn, of which 4,400 tons were produced
 in New Mexico alone in 1926, according to estimate of the Department of
Agriculture; they do not include 76,066 cars of California grapes; they do not
include grains or sugar beets or any other product of the soil except those specified,
and they do not include the product of any industry other than agriculture.
But they will illustrate in some measure why the interests of the carriers and the
farmers of the regions concerned are identical, and one of the reasons why the
carriers join the famers in submitting that no legislation of this sort should be
adopted until a definite answer can be made with perfect confidence to the
jayiny where, if Mexican labor is made unavailable, is substitute labor to be
ad
A substantial reduction in the enormous tonnage afforded the carriers by the
industries of the West and Southwest would distinctly impair their ability to
serve the public, and would pass to other sections of the country and to other
commodities the burden of providing the revenues necessarv to maintain and
operate the transportation plant.
The interest of the carriers, however, does not rest upon tonnage alone.
By section 15(a) of the interstate commerce act Congress declared that—
“% x * In the exercise of its power to prescribe just and reasonable rates
the commission shall initiate, modify, establish, or adjust such rates so that
carriers as a whole * * * will * * * earn an aggregate annual return
equal, as nearly as may be, to a fair return.”
on their property devoted to transportation service. This secticn further
requires the commission to determine and announce from time to time what
percentage is a fair return, and under this mandate the commission has declared
that the railroads of the country should be permitted to operate under a rate
structure which will enable them to earn 53 per cent on their property devoted
to transportation and honestlv. economically, and efficiently managed (68
[. C. C. 734).
By the Hoch-Smith resolution, approved January 30, 1925 (43 Stat. 801),
requiring the Interstate Commerce Commission after investigation to change,
adjust, and redistribute freight rates so as to correct any defects found to exist
in the rate structure of the country, Congress expressly declared that there
existed a depression in agriculture and gave to the Interstate Commerce Commission
 specific directions in the following language:
“Tp view of the existing depression in agriculture, the commission is hereby
directed to effect with the least practicable delay such lawful changes in the
rate structure of the country as will promote the freedom of movement by common
 carriers of the products of agriculture affected by that depression, including
livestock, at the lowest possible lawful rates compatible with the maintenance
of adequate transportation service.” .
Referring to this resolution the Interstate Commerce Commission has said:
“Tt gets no new standard of lawfulness but provides in effect that, to the extent
that there are flexible limits to our discretion, we shall require the maintenance
of the lowest rates falling within those flexible limits. Rates that may be lawfully
 required must in principle be high enough to cover all of the cost that may
fairly be allocated to the service plus at least some margin of vrofit.”” ( Grain
and Grain Products, 122 I. C. C. 235, 264.) oo
This exact language was repeated by the Interstate Commerce Commission
in its recent decision of the California deciduous-fruit case (129 I. C. C. 25); and
in its decision rendered November 14, 1927, upon reconsideration of the same