« PreviousContinue »
Decided October 8, 1938
Upon further consideration prior report, 3 M. C. C. 129, modified, in part.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION
DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5:
This proceeding was reopened for further consideration by our order dated June 1, 1938.
Pursuant to the recommended order of joint board No. 185, served August 21, 1937, which in the absence of exceptions thereto became effective as our order, a certificate of public convenience and necessity was issued on December 9, 1937, to applicant authorizing operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of livestock, from Creighton, Nebr., and a defined territory adjacent thereto, to Sioux City, Iowa, and of livestock, farm machinery and implements, and livestock feed, in the reverse direction. The purpose of this report is to correct statements contained in the prior report with respect to the question of whether applicant's operations have been lawful. The prior report is not modified in any other respect.
Applicant, prior to the issuance of a certificate herein and since November 1, 1935, transported livestock between Creighton and points west and south thereof on the one hand, and Sioux City on the other. Other commodities, such as hardware, occasionally were carried in the same vehicle. Applicant testified in this connection that the carriage of commodities other than livestock was performed as an accommodation and that he did not benefit financially or otherwise therefrom. It was found in the prior report that, since applicant's vehicle was not used exclusively in the transportation of commodities specified in section 203 (b) (6) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, his operations had been unlawful.
In Monroe Common Carrier Application, 8 M. C. C. 183, decided July 9, 1938, we found that applicant used his motor vehicle to transport livestock for hire from Purcellville, Va., to Baltimore, Md. Applicant performed no other transportation for hire in interstate
or foreign commerce, or in intrastate commerce. On return trips, however, he transported to Purcellville fertilizer, lime, and other commodities purchased by him in Baltimore, which commodities were his own property while so transported. In that proceeding we held that, since applicant's vehicle was used exclusively in the transportation of commodities specified in section 203 (b) (6) of the act, except for the carrying of other commodities without compensation, a certificate of public convenience and necessity was not required by and may not properly be issued under the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. Accordingly the application was denied.
It was pointed out there that any doubt concerning the interpretation of section 203 (b) (6) was removed by the amendment thereto, which changed the section so as to read as follows:
(6) Motor vehicles used in carrying property consisting of livestock, fisb (including shellfish), or agricultural commodities (not including manufactured products thereof), if such motor vehicles are not used in carrying any other property, or passengers, for compensation.
In view of our findings in the Monroe case, and the above quoted amendment to the act, we conclude that applicant's operations were not unlawful and to that extent the prior report herein is modified. Applicant will make a charge for the carriage of commodities other than livestock and will not continue to offer any transportation service merely as an accommodation. Authority to operate is therefore necessary and the certificate which applicant now holds was therefore properly issued.
9 M. C. C.
No. MC-50802 HARRY B. KORMAN, INCORPORATED, CONTRACT
Decided October 8, 1938
On reconsideration, found that applicant is entitled to operate as a contract
carrier by motor vehicle, of specified commodities, from Joliet, Ill., to Detroit, Mich., over a described route, including delivery service at intermediate points, and that such operation will be consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. Permit granted. Appearances shown in prior report.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION
DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5:
In the prior report herein (not printed)1 joint board No. 73, to which the matter had been referred, found that operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of roofing and building materials, in interstate or foreign commerce, from Joliet, Ill., to Detroit, Mich., over a specified route, would be consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. The order accompanying the report recommended the issuance of an appropriate permit. No exceptions were filed to the recommended order, we did not stay or postpone it, and on March 31, 1938, it accordingly became effective as our order. Applicant subsequently advised that it desired to serve intermediate points, and we have accordingly reopened the proceeding for reconsideration on the record as made.
1 Listed in table of cases disposed of without printed report, 4 M. C. C. 805.
2 Roofing and building materials; asphalt and asbestos shingles and sidings; prepared roofing; building and roofing paper ; felt paper; asbestos paper; millboard; wallboard ; asphalt; tar; pitch in packages; roofing cement; nails; clips and fasteners; asbestos roofing and sheathing; saturated fabric creosote oil; insulation materials; mineral wool, ridge roll; eaves ; filler strips ; roofing granules; and paint.
* From Joliet over U. S. Highway 66 to junction with Illinois Highway 7, thence Illinois Highway 7 to junction with U. S. Highway 6, thence U. S. Highway 6 to Hammond, Ind.; from Hammond over U. S. Highway 20 through Gary, Ind., to South Bend, Ind.; from South Bend over Indiana Highway 2 to Elkhart, Ind.; from Elkhart over Indiana Highway 319 to Bristol, Ind.; from Bristol over Indiana Highway 15 and U. S. Highway 131 to Mottville, Mich.; and from Mottville over U. S. Highway 112 to Detroit.
The application as filed December 8, 1936, described proposed operations from Joliet to Detroit to perform transportation service for the Ruberoid Company plant at Joliet, but did not describe service at intermediate points. It developed at the hearing in this matter, however, that authority is sought to drop off products of the Ruberoid Company at intermediate points located along the route described, and the application will be considered as amended accordingly. In support of testimony in this respect a copy of a contract between applicant and the Ruberoid Company was introduced in evidence. This contract provides for service to Detroit and also to the intermediate points for the purpose of distributing roofing and building materials. A representative of the Ruberoid Company testified that the Joliet plant of his concern, being about 46 miles off the main highway between Chicago, Ill., and Detroit, is at a disadvantage in that no direct trucking service is available to Detroit. At times, he further testified, shipments are held on docks as much as two days because existing motor carriers are unable to furnish equipment. Because of competition, it was further pointed out, a direct overnight service to Detroit is necessary, and existing rail and motor carriers do not provide such service.
We conclude, from the facts outlined, that the authority granted applicant under our prior order should be broadened so as to authorize deliveries at intermediate points on the route described.
Upon reconsideration, we therefore find that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the proposed service of a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of roofing and building materials (more fully described above), in interstate or foreign commerce, from Joliet to Detroit, serving all intermediate points for deliveries only, over the route hereinbefore described, and to conform to the provisions of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that such operation will be consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the act; and that a permit should be granted.
Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 218 of the act, with our rules and regulations thereunder, and with the requirements established in Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M. C. C. 628, an appropriate permit will be issued. An order will be entered reopening this proceeding for reconsideration and vacating our prior order herein.
9 M. C.C.
No. MC-41620 S. S. AND ARNOLD J. BARASH BROKER APPLICATION
Submitted January 4, 1938. Decided October 8, 1938
Operation by applicants as brokers in arranging transportation by motor vehi
cle, of passengers and their baggage, in interstate or foreign commerce, found consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in
section 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. License granted. C.S. Connolly and Wesley J. Mifflin for applicants. Raymond W. Clifford for protestants.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
The order recommended by joint board No. 45, to which no exceptions were filed, was stayed by us.
By application filed February 11, 1936, S. S. Barash and Arnold J. Barash, copartners, doing business as Where To Go Bureau, of Seattle, Wash., seek a license authorizing continuance of operation as brokers in arranging transportation, by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in interstate or foreign commerce. The North Coast Transportation Company and the Washington Motor Coach Company opposed the application.
Applicants have been operating as a general travelers' bureau since 1920, providing travel information to the public concerning transportation companies, hotels, national parks, resorts, and tourist trips. They receive an average of 250 to 300 inquiries a day, and maintain 24-hour telephone service. They sell transportation tickets or "requisitions” on transportation companies, and travelers' checks. They also publish a booklet containing travel and resort information. Their principal office is located in the heart of the business district of Seattle, and a year-round branch office is operated in a hotel in Portland. During the travel season they also maintain additional branch offices in downtown hotels of Seattle and in a bank located near the University of Washington in Seattle. A profit-andloss statement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1937, indicates total revenues of approximately $20,000 and expenses of approximately $14,000, leaving a net profit of approximately $6,300.