be denied, and the corresponding portion of No. MC-60890, the extension application, may be passed without discussion.

B. Household goods.-We shall next consider the merits of applicants' "grandfather" claims to a household goods operation between all points in 27 States and the District of Columbia. Applicants have been affiliated as operating or nonoperating so-called "agents" of Allied Van Lines, Inc., hereinafter called Allied, since 1926 or 1927. Their arrangements with Allied are substantially similar to those described in Hillier Storage Co. Common Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 185, wherein it was determined that an Allied hauling "agent" performing transportation services in its own vehicles was entitled to any "grandfather" rights accruing by reason of operations performed by it; and that its services as a nonoperating agent, in the booking of shipments which were registered with Allied, and turned over to others for transportation, did not constitute brokerage operations within the meaning of section 203 (a) (18) of the act. Similar conclusions are warranted here.

Transportation by applicants' predecessor and by applicants in interstate or foreign commerce, to or from points beyond Iowa, has been confined almost entirely to household goods. On the statutory date, such predecessors owned and operated nine complete units of equipment. These vehicles were registered on June 1, 1935, in the predecessor's name in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas, and authority had been obtained to transport in and through Rhode Island. One of such vehicles was registered in Massachusetts in Allied's name.

In support of the claimed "grandfather" right, applicant submitted an abstract of approximately 250 representative shipments, showing transportation performed by applicants' predecessor during the period from 1930 to June 1, 1935, between such Iowa points as Cedar Rapids, Anamosa, Tipton, Manchester, Mount Vernon, Decorah, Fairfax, Monticello, Des Moines, Ames, West Union, Belle Plaine, Iowa City, and Charles City, among others, on the one hand, and various representative points in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, on the other. In addition to these so-called "radial" operations, based in Iowa, applicants during the same period also conducted substantial nonradial or cross-haul operations. The digests of shipments show approximately 40 cross-haul movements as follows: From points in Illinois to points in Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas, from points in Missouri to points in Illinois and Nebraska, from Indiana to Pennsylvania, from Pennsylvania to

New York and Virginia, from New York to Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan, from Massachusetts to Illinois, from Michigan to Nebraska, from Washington, D. C., to Indiana, Illinois and Ohio, and from West Virginia to Indiana.

The hearing was held in 1936, and it was testified generally that the service shown prior to the statutory date was continued thereafter. Although cross-haul service is not shown from or to every State served radially, the volume of cross-haul shipments, nearly one fifth of the total operations, is substantial and indicates a service throughout the territory served generally consistent with applicants' nonradial holding out. While applicants also profess a holding out to serve points in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, North Carolina, and Tennessee, we must disregard this undertaking in the absence of evidence of any physical transportation to or from any point in such States on or prior to the critical date.

No. MC-60890, extension.-Although this application was filed prior to the statutory date, it is essentially one for authority to transport household goods between all points in the United States, except those in Washington and Oregon, as an extension of any "grandfather" rights to which applicants may be found entitled. A representative of the applicant copartners testified that this authority is desired because applicants anticipate that the radius, to or from which household goods may be economically transported by motor vehicle, will greatly increase in the near future, in which event they wish to be able to supply service. Actually, however, this witness could only enumerate a few instances where service to or from a point beyond the territory sought in the "grandfather" application had ever been requested, and, in those instances, it was frankly admitted by him that the customer was readily persuaded to use another service. Kentucky and Tennessee are the only States not within the "grandfather" grant above indicated, shown by the documentary evidence to have been served during the so-called interim period and thereafter. Plainly, a showing of something more than the mere desire of an applicant for extended authority is required to prove public convenience and necessity. Based on the present record, the sole additional grant which we believe to be justified is authority to transport household goods to or from points in Kentucky and Tennessee in connection with the "grandfather" operations heretofore described.

Applicants are unquestionably financially and otherwise able properly to conduct such extended services.

No. MC-60891.-This application is somewhat confusing as to the authority sought, because it speaks of a consolidating service and also a leasing of equipment in intrastate commerce, but little evidence was submitted in clarification thereof. Obviously, however, equipment

leasing operations involving intrastate service are not subject to our jurisdiction, and, if, as the record suggests, the consolidating services for forwarders are performed within Cedar Rapids, they are likewise exempt from the certificate requirements of the act. If applicants themselves act as consolidators such operations are subject to part IV, rather than part II, of the act. More clearly, however, it appears that applicants are here seeking a permit authorizing (1) the transportation of general commodities, in a radial operation to and from points in a base territory in Iowa, and those in numerous States, and (2) an operation auxiliary to or supplemental of rail service, between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, including collection and delivery services at such termini, and (3) the leasing of equipment to carriers and shippers.

Firstly, with reference to the general commodity operation, the documentary evidence only shows about one-half dozen shipments of commodities other than household goods transported by applicants' predecessor prior to the statutory date, and none is shown thereafter. Indeed, it was admitted by an applicant copartner that applicants rarely, if ever, engaged in general-commodity operations beyond Cedar Rapids after the statutory date. Accordingly, this phase of the application must be denied.

Secondly, since 1933, applicants, pursuant to an agreement with the Northwestern Light and Power Company and the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway, herein together called the Railway Company, have operated two of their motor vehicles over a regular route between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, including collection and delivery service at both such points, under a certificate granted the Railway Company by the Iowa State Commission. These shipments are transported in many instances as an integral part of a through movement to or from points without Iowa, and such transportation is therefore subject to our jurisdiction. However, in No. MC-5895, a certificate 3 was issued on June 22, 1942, to the Power Company doing business as Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway covering this identical operation. Since only a single operation has been conducted between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, and the Railway Company has been granted a certificate authorizing its continuance, without any opposition by applicants, it necessarily follows that the latter may not be granted duplicate operating rights herein. See United States v. N. E. Rosenblum Truck Lines, Inc., 315 U. S. 50; Lubetich v. United States, 315 U. S. 57; and Boston & Maine Transp. Co. Common Carrier Application, 34 M. C. C. 599.

That certificate was issued to Northwestern Light and Power Company and was subsequently sold January 23, 1942, to Iowa Electric Light and Power Company under authority granted by this Commission, division 4, in No. MC-FC-1665.

Thirdly, although authority is sought to conduct contract-carrier operations in the leasing of equipment to shippers and other carriers, no evidence was submitted as to the nature and extent of such arrangements or the territory involved, and we are unable to determine from the record whether the leasing practices engaged in by applicants are such as to constitute carrier operations requiring authority from this Commission, and, if so, whether applicants are entitled to such authority. In the absence of any evidence on this phase of the application, it must be denied.

No. MC-12202, broker application.-There remains for consideration the question whether applicants require a license for the continuance of certain alleged brokerage services. As already indicated in connection with the "grandfather" clause proceedings, applicants' activities as a nonoperating member of Allied, booking and registering shipments of household goods which Allied turns over to others for transportation, does not constitute applicants a broker within the meaning of section 203 (a) (18) of the act. See Hillier Storage Co. Common Carrier Application, supra. In addition, customers of applicants, which make use of their warehouse or local cartage services, frequently request them to arrange for the transportation of their goods to points throughout the United States. It is not, however, the usual practice for applicants to make a separate or additional charge for their service in arranging transportation. In the circumstances, we conclude that such services are performed by applicants as an incident to their warehousing and local cartage operations, and that, so long as no separate or additional charge is made for their efforts in arranging for transportation by others, no license is required. See Kedney Warehouse Co. of N. Dak. Broker Application, 33 M. C. C. 443. The occasions where applicants accept a commission for turning over freight to carriers other than Allied members for transportation are very infrequent. In such isolated instances, applicants appear to be performing services as a broker subject to the act, but the limited showing made with respect to such services fails to afford a basis for concluding that the granting of a license to applicants will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. This application will therefore be denied.

Findings.-1. We find, in No. MC-60890 (BMC-1), that on and continuously since June 1, 1935, applicants and their predecessor have been engaged in bona fide operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, between points in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, over irregular routes, traversing Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island for operating convenience only; that applicants are entitled to a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing a continuance of such operation; and that in all other respects this application should be denied.

2. In No. MC-60890 (BMC-8), we further find that present and future public convenience and necessity require continuance of operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, by applicants, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, supra, between points in Kentucky and Tennessee and between such points, on the one hand, and points in the States named in finding 1, on the other; that applicants are fit, willing, and able properly to perform such services and to conform to the provisions of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder; that an appropriate certificate authorizing a continuance of such operation should be issued; and that in all other respects the application should be denied.

3. In No. MC-60891, we find that applicants have failed to establish that they or their predecessor were in bona fide operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, on and since July 1, 1935, between any points whatsoever; and that the application should be denied.

4. In No. MC-12202, we find that applicants have failed to establish that operations by them as a broker in arranging for the transportation of general commodities, including household goods, will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; and that their application for a license should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicants with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An order will be entered denying all the considered applications except to the extent granted herein.

42 M. C. C.