The Chairman. How long was it?

Mr. Hearst. About another year. '

The Chairman. How long was it after the institution of your pre
ceeding before the Commission put the thing in such shape that i
might be appealed?

Mr. Hearst. The appeals were taken, I think, after hearings ha
been going on for several months. I would not say how long, exactlj
The total time has been from November, 1902, down to this date, an
the final arguments, I believe, are to be made before the Commissio
on February 7; that is, next month.
Mr. Richardson. There was as much time consumed in the dela;
before the Interstate Commission as there was in the appeals befor
the higher courts?

Mr. Hearst. Just about, I should say; yes, sir. They were abou
equal, I think.
Mr. Kyle. Both of you appealing; both parties appealing the case

Mr. Hearst. In the first case the defendant appealed and in th
second case the Interstate Commerce Commission appealed to th
Supreme Court.
Mr. Kyle. Then there were two separate appeals, each of you hav
ing appealed from some decision?

Mr. Hearst. Yes, sir. The Interstate Commerce Commissio
ruled and then appealed from the decision of the circuit court whic
was wrong. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and the books an
papers were produced.
Mr. Richardson. Did 1 understand you as having made any specis
complaint about the matter of delay, either before the Interstate Con
merce Commission or before the appellate court ?

Mr. Hearst. No, I have not made any complaint about that. I
my bill I have tried to provide clauses that would remedy that.
