The Central has pointed out. ``The logic of creating a strong, balanced, competitive two system railroad service in the East is so obvious that B. + O. was publicly committed to the approach outlined here.

Detailed studies of the plan were well underway. Though far from completion, these studies indicated beyond a doubt that savings would result which would be of unprecedented benefit to the railroads concerned, their investors, their customers, their users, and to the public at large.

Then, abandoning the studies in the face of their promising outlook for all concerned, B. + O. entered on-again-off-again negotiations with C. + O. which resulted in the present situation.

In the light of the facts at hand, however, New York Central intends to pursue the objective of helping to create a healthy two system eastern railroad structure in the public interest ``.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will commence its deliberations on the proposed C. + O. - B. + O. merger on June 18. Obviously, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not force the New York Central to further curtail its commuter operations by giving undue competitive advantages to the lines that wish to merge.

However, there is a more profound consideration to this proposed merger than profit and loss. That is, will it serve the long-range public interest?

For the past 40 years Congress has advocated a carefully planned, balanced and competitive railway system. We must ask ourselves which of the two alternatives will help the commuter -- the two-way B. + O. - C. + O. merger, or the three way New York Central B. + O. - C. + O. merger. Which will serve not only the best interest of the stockholders, but the interests of all the traveling public?