Page images
PDF
EPUB

Applicants represent many of the local and foreign steamship companies operating out of Seattle, United Air Lines, and Mount Rainier National Park Company. Representatives of those companies testified as to the high standard of applicants' business. Applicants receive a commission from these companies ranging from 5 to 10 percent on tickets sold. They also issued "requisitions” for railroad tickets but receive no commission except where transportation or lodging at the various national parks is involved.

For several years they have represented a group of Pacific Northwest motorbus companies. At the time of filing this application they represented Union Pacific Stages and Pacific Greyhound Stages at Portland, and Benjamin Franklin Line at Seattle. This last-named carrier has discontinued its operation pursuant to the order in Benjamin Franklin Line, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 1 M. C. C. 97. They receive a commission from these carriers of 10 percent on all tickets sold.

Prior to June 21, 1935, applicants also represented protestants North Coast Transportation Company and Washington Motor Coach Company, which provided, respectively, the principal motorbus operations southbound, and eastbound, from Seattle. The traffic manager of the former stated that applicants' service had been engaged to meet a chaotic competitive condition which then existed between Seattle and Portland. On that date, however, those two carriers removed all tickets from the agency. Conflicting evidence was presented at the hearing concerning the reason for this severance of business with applicants. Witnesses for these carriers testified that they suspended business dealings with applicants because applicants were engaged in destructive practices, such as splitting of commissions with passengers and providing free taxicab service from the homes of passengers to the bus terminal. Applicants denied this and their witnesses testified that they had no knowledge of applicants' participation in any such destructive practices as alleged by protestants.

The record shows that applicants have made transportation arrangements, for which compensation was received, for passengers, from Seattle and Portland to points in the United States and foreign countries. They also arrange tours, some of which are conducted personally under the supervision of competent guides. Advertising material and testimony indicate that applicants' sale of transportation has been world-wide in character. In planning an itinerary for tourists applicants may use motor-vehicle transportation, rail, steamship, or airplane, or a combination of these, depending upon the mode of travel selected by the tourists or upon facilities available to

a given point. Since applicants offer for sale motor transportation subject to the act as a distinct service, along with other services rendered, they come within the definition of a “broker” as described in section 203 (b) (18) of the act and a license to perform such service is required under section 211. The transportation by motor vehicle to or from foreign points, however, in connection with which we may authorize a broker's license, is that performed wholly within the United States. We have no jurisdiction over such transportation when performed in foreign countries.

Applicants maintain an efficient office, have an excellent standing in the communities which they serve, and have had long experience in the brokerage business. They render a service that is a convenience to the public.

We find that applicants are fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service of a broker of transportation by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in interstate or foreign commerce, at Seattle and Portland, arranging for such transportation between those points, on the one hand, and all points in the United States and in foreign countries, insofar as such transportation is performed within the United States, on the other hand, including round-trip tours originating and ending at Seattle or Portland, and to conform to the provisions of the act and our requirements, rules, and regulations thereunder; that the continuance of such service will be consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the act; and that a brokerage license should be granted.

A license will be issued upon compliance by applicants with the requirements of section 211 of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder.

9 M. C. C.

No. MC-594911

JERSEY COAST TRANSFER COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION

Submitted July 11, 1938. Decided October 8, 1938

Applicant found entitled to continue operation as a common carrier by motor

vehicle, of general commodities, between certain points in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, over irregular routes, and of special commodities, between points in New Jersey, on the one hand, and various points in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, on the other hand, over irregular routes, because it was engaged in operation on June 1, 1935, and continuously since.

Certificate granted and applications denied in all other respects.
Charles E. Cotterill for applicant.
Earle J. Harrington for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

Division 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5:

The two applications considered in this report, one under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, and the other under the "grandfather” clause of section 209 (a) of the act, were filed on January 21, 1936, and February 7, 1936, respectively, by the Jersey Coast Transfer Company, Incorporated, of Asbury Park, N. J. Exceptions were filed by applicant to the order recommended by the examiner.

It developed at the hearing that the only operation in interstate or foreign commerce in which applicant wishes to engage as an unrestricted common carrier by motor vehicle is the transportation of general commodities, between points within the territory bounded as follows:

On the north and east by the commercial zone of New York, N. Y., thence following a theoretical line from the Hudson River east to Englewood, N. J., thence south to Ridgefield Park, N. J., thence south and west to Somerville, N. J., through Brookdale, Glen Ridge, and Summit, N. J., thence south through Raritan, Blawenburg, and Ewingville, N. J., to Wilburtha, N. J., thence south to Yardley, Pa., thence Pennsylvania Highway 432 to Philadelphia, Pa., including its commercial zone and Ardmore, Landsdowne, and Darby, Pa., thence southeast to Paulsboro, N. J., thence east through Mount Royal, Fairview, and Tansboro,

1 This report also embraces No. MC-59491, Jersey Coast Transfer Company, Incorpo rated, Contract Carrier Application.

N. J., to Atsion, N. J., thence north to Tabernacle, N. J., thence northeast through Lebanon State Forest and Buckingham, N. J., to Whiting, N. J., thence east to the Atlantic Coast through Keswich Grove and Bayville, N. J., thence north along the coast to New York, N. Y., over irregular routes, and as a common carrier of general commodities in truckload quantities only, from one consignor to one consignee, between all points in New Jersey, on the one hand, and all points in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, on the other hand.

Applicant has operated as a common carrier by motor vehicle for a number of years and at the present time owns and operates seven tractors, seven semitrailers, and approximately seven trucks. It has always held itself out to serve, and has transported shipments for, the general public, motor carriers, and forwarding companies on call and demand. Applicant does not operate under bilateral contracts or special agreements, nor has it refused to transport commodities offered by the general public within the territory sought. All of its operations have been over routes which were most convenient and it bas not limited its operations to definite schedules or to any regular routes. It was stated that the application filed February 7, 1936, erroneously sought a permit as a contract carrier rather than a certificate as an irregular common carrier of general commodities, through a misapprehension of the meaning of those terms.

In support of the application for authority to operate as an unrestricted common carrier between points in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, as specifically set out above, applicant submitted as an exhibit an abstract of an analysis of more than 900 representative shipments showing the commodity transported, date, origin, and destination for the period from April 1935 to June 1935, and for the month of April 1937. The uncontroverted evidence shows that applicant has transported a wide range of commodities for the general public since prior to June 1, 1935, and that it has been in bona fide and continuous operation as a common carrier, in interstate or foreign commerce, between the points in this territory over irregular routes. Having met the requirements of the “grand father" clause, it follows that applicant is entitled to a certificate authorizing continuance of these operations.

It was also testified that applicant transported general commodities as a common carrier in truckload quantities, from one consignor to one consignee, between points in New Jersey, on the one hand, and points in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, on the other hand, over irregular routes prior to June 1, 1935, and con

tinuously since. This operation is in addition to the one stated above and, in support thereof, applicant presented an exhibit supported by freight receipts, which lists approximately 520 representative truckload shipments transported by applicant between some of the points within the territory sought during the period from January 9, 1934, to December 22, 1936. The exhibit for the entire period shows 175 shipments of coal from mines in Pennsylvania to points in New Jersey, 58 shipments of petroleum products from Marcus Hook, Pa., to points in New Jersey, including the return of empty containers, 16 shipments of clothing and dry goods between Cambridge, Md., and points in New Jersey, 28 shipments of household goods and furniture between points in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, 94 shipments of various commodities transported within New Jersey, and 125 shipments of various commodities within the territory sought in the other application. The evidence discloses that applicant has not operated from or to points in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Applicant did, however, transport, in addition to the commodities listed above, 3 shipments of seeds from Connecticut, 1 shipment of store fixtures to Wilmington, Del., and 16 shipments of logs from points in New Jersey to points in Pennsylvania, during the year 1934, 8 shipments of bottles from Elmira, N. Y., to points in New Jersey during the year 1935, and 2 shipments of lime, 2 shipments of dishwashers, 8 shipments of machines, and 1 shipment each of boilers, millwork, limoid, and junk during the above-stated period of time.

Insofar as this operation is concerned, there is nothing in the record to indicate that applicant held itself out to transport or ever did transport a sufficient variety of commodities to constitute general commodities. It apparently has attempted to obtain only a few commodities for transportation and has actually served only a comparatively small number of shippers or consignees of freight. Clearly, applicant's principal truckload operation was the transportation of coal, petroleum products, clothing and dry goods, and household goods and furniture, such other transportation as it furnished being merely incidental thereto. To hold on this showing that applicant should be authorized to transport general commodities, manifestly would be unfair to competitors entitled to such authorization under the “grandfather” clause, established by an actual showing of operation upon a broad scope and a holding out to transport and the transportation of all commodities offered. Under section 206 of the act, an applicant is entitled to a certificate authorizing the continuance only of such operation as it was engaged in, in a bona fide manner, on June 1, 1935, and continuously since. To authorize applicant to transport a larger number of commodities than it has ever transported or held itself out to transport, on

« PreviousContinue »