« PreviousContinue »
to meet rates of competitive transportation agencies, and to establish commodity rates to encourage the movement of traffic by motor vehicle.
Cilco Terminal contends that many of the proposed rates are unduly preferential of points in New York Harbor and unduly prejudicial to Bridgeport. Generally this contention is based on a comparison between the respondents' present rates from Connecticut points to Bridgeport and the proposed rates from the same origins to New York, N. Y., and related points. The rates from the Connecticut points to Bridgeport are higher, distance considered, than the proposed rates to New York and related points. Cilco Terminal states that it is not interested in the measure of the rates, but asks that the carriers be required to maintain rates to Bridgeport which, compared with rates to New York and related points, will reflect the distances traveled. Under section 216 (e) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, we are without authority to prescribe, or in any manner regulate, rates for intrastate transportation, to remove discriminations against interstate commerce or for any other purpose. In Mutual Creamery Co. v. American Ry. Exp., 132 I. C. C. 207, Kittle Mfg. Co., Inc., v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 172 I. C. C. 243, and other proceedings, it was held that undue prejudice or unjust discrimination against intrastate commerce is not within the purview of the Interstate Commerce Act. In our opinion, our powers in this respect with reference to motor-carrier rates under the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, are no broader than those conferred upon us in the Interstate Commerce Act relative to rail rates.
Cilco Terminal does not contend that the proposed rates from Connecticut points to New York Harbor points would be below a reasonable minimum level, and as they are generally comparable with rates previously prescribed between other points we shall permit their establishment.
The only proposed rates from points other than in Connecticut to which Cilco Terminal objects are rates on envelopes from Holyoke and other Massachusetts points to New York and related destinations. This proposed modification is asked to permit the establishment of the same rates on envelopes as we prescribed from and to the same points on papeteries. The previous orders will be modified in the manner sought, but, as we stated in our report on further consideration, we shall consider the relationship of rates to Bridgeport and New York Harbor points at the further hearing referred to in our original report.
A number of the proposals are not clear, and some proposals appear to be contrary to sound rate-making practices. With respect
to the other proposals which are not subject to these criticisms, we shall grant the petitions, and we shall also afford petitioners an opportunity at a further hearing to amplify the proposals which are not clear and to justify those which appear to be of doubtful propriety.
Upon further consideration of the record, and upon the facts presented in the petitions, we are of the opinion and find that our previous orders should be modified to the extent set forth in the order we shall enter herein.
9 M. O. O.
No. MC-19564 1
L. C. JONES TRUCKING COMPANY COMMON CARRIER
Submitted January 17, 1938. Decided October 8, 1938
1. Applicant found entitled to continue operations as a common carrier by motor
vehicle, of oil-field machinery, equipment, and supplies, orer irregular routes, between points in Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming, by reason of having been engaged in
such operations on and continuously since June 1, 1935. Certificate granted. 2. Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as
a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce,
Louisiana, on the other. Certificate granted.
H. C. Barron, James G. Blaine, larry E. Bowe, R. E. Brandt, H. J. Carr, R. R. Chavis, Robert M. Clark, W. W. Dalton, W. E. Davis, Weldon A. Dayton, J. E. Dimond, B. M. Gillespie, G. W. li olmes, Robert M. Jordan, Frank H. Moore, Hugh F. Owens, Cur! L. Phinney, F. W. Prosser, C. J. Putt, M. G. Roberts, Sam L. Sayers, H. W. Schaffer, Herbert L. Smith, C. M. Steelsmith, and R. T. Williams for protestants.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
These applications were heard separately and separate recommended reports and orders were issued. Exceptions were filed by protestant rail carriers to the recommended order in the "grandfather” application, and the recommended order in the extension proceeding was stayed by us. Both applications were filed on February 12, 1936, by L. C. Jones, doing business as L. C. Jones Trucking Company, of Oklahoma City, Okla.
“Grandfather” application.-By this application authority is sought to continue operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of oil-field machinery, equipment, and supplies, between oil fields in Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming, over irregular routes. Numerous motor and rail carriers ? opposed the application, but with the exception of certain testimony by an employee of the Railroad Commission of Texas, and the testimony of employees of motor carriers operating in Texas, all of which was designed to show that applicant's operations to and from points in Texas have been unlawful, they offered no evidence in opposition to the application.
* This report also embraces No. MC-19564, L. C. Jones Trucking Company Extension of Operations.
On June 1, 1935, applicant's equipment consisted of 30 complete units, and at the time of the hearing 38 complete units, specially equipped for the hauling of oil-field equipment, machinery, and supplies. All carry winches and have flat bodies. The larger trucks have six wheels with 4-wheel trailers, capable of transporting as much as 50,000 pounds over unbroken ground.
Applicant has been engaged in the interstate transportation of oilfield machinery, equipment, and supplies since 1915. Prior to 1920 operations were conducted with horse-drawn vehicles. He was registered under the code of fair competition for the trucking industry in 1934 and 1935. For several years prior to and since June 1, 1935, he has transported these commodities as occasion required over irregular routes between points in Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming. Except as to Oklahoma and Kansas, applicant had obtained no State certificate or permit prior to June 1, 1935. Applicant's testimony, supported by numerous documents, is to the effect that operations in other States concerned were permitted on the purchase of license tags, and payment of port-ofentry charges, mileage taxes, and certain gross-profit taxes. The Railroad Commission of Texas, intervening in opposition to the application, asserts that prior to August 9, 1935, applicant failed to apply for authority to conduct operations in that State and that, consequently, his operations therein have been unlawful. The evidence indicates, however, that applicant's operations to and from points in Texas were "openly conducted, without any element of pretense, disguise, or concealment.” Therefore, his failure to obtain an appropriate certificate or permit from the Texas Commission constitutes no valid reason for denial of the application. See Slagle Contract Carrier Application, 2 M. C. C. 127.
Red Arrow Freight Lines, Incorporated, Red Ball Motor Freight Line, Johnson Motor Lines, Sproles Motor Freight Lines, Incorporated, Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Incorporated, T. S. C. Motor Freight Lines, Incorporated, Common Carrier Motor Freight Association of Texas, Railway General Managers Association of Texas, East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Southern Transportation Company, the Southern Kansas Stage Lines, Oklahoma Railway Company, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, Missouri-KansasTexas Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, The Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Railway Company, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, class I railroads of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Pacific Southwestern Railroad Association.
For a number of years applicant has maintained headquarters at one point or another in Oklahoma. A large part of his operations have been to or from that State, but as need for his services developed he has operated to and from points in other States. He moves drill rigs, tools, and supplies incidental to oil-well drilling operations for drilling contractors from a point where they have been in use to some other point where a well is to be drilled. These operations have required movements into and from the several States, in which the Midcontinent oil field is situated. Such operations require special equipment and as many as 20 trucks are often used in a single operation. Movements in many instances are urgent, and applicant, in an effort to improve his service, has maintained equipment and employees at camps near new oil-field developments. On June 1, 1935, he had a camp at Chase, Kans., which he still operates. Since that time he has established camps at Rodessa, La., and Hobbs, N. Mex. In 1931 he had a camp at Gladewater, Tex., but served points in East Texas and West Texas prior thereto. Applicant's operations have tended to follow the oil-drilling industry. In 1932 he engaged in some operations to Colorado, and served points in Wyoming through Colorado during the same year. He served Louisiana the latter part of 1934 or the first part of 1935. In general he has endeavored to serve those points where a need has developed for the drilling of new oil wells.
In support of operations within the States covered by this application, applicant submitted in evidence documents prepared from original books of entry showing his interstate operations for the years 1935 and 1936. These copies of shipping papers show approximately 137 movements from or to points in Oklahoma between July 11, 1934, and December 23, 1936; 42 movements from or to points in Texas between April 9, 1935, and November 11, 1936; 38 movements from or to points in Kansas between January 8, 1935, and December 7, 1936; 43 movements from or to points in Louisiana between July 12, 1934, and December 23, 1936; 12 movements from or to points in New Mexico between July 11, 1934, and June 15, 1936; 3 movements from or to points in Colorado between January 17, 1935, and November 28, 1936; and 8 movements from or to points in Wyoming between June 29, 1935, and September 7, 1936.
Although the evidence is clear that applicant has rendered service to or from the States named, an analysis of the shipping papers shows that movements to or from certain States have been infrequent. Applicant urges, in effect, that although he did not actually serve all points on June 1, 1935, the demands of the business make it imperative that he be given authority to operate in interstate or foreign commerce between all points covered by the application. It