into by it and Shaecher-Kux Lumber Co., of Eugene, Oreg., for whom it had rendered service under temporary authority in 1951. The contract indicates that the lumber company desires to make further shipments from the Tillamook Bay area to points on the west coast and to Alaskan ports. Applicant for its part agrees to provide transportation to all points authorized by the Commission, and in return. the shipper convenants to commit all of its lumber traffic available for movement by water to applicant. The lumber to be moved under the terms of the contract would be shipped generally during a 3-month period of the year when rail cars are not available for the movement of lumber along the coast. During the rest of the year other companies would have available small shipments for water transportation. The Wood Products Company, a wholesale lumber company of Portland, Oreg., also owns and controls the Juno Lumber Company, which produces lumber at Tillamook. Both companies, hereinafter called the shipper, support the application. The subsidiary company manufactures about 2 million feet of lumber monthly. The parent company purchases additional lumber from other companies located in the Tillamook Bay area for shipment to Portland. In May 1951 the shipper used applicant's service which was performed under temporary authority. At the date of the hearing all of its lumber shipments were moving by rail. Although the shipper then had lumber available for movement by water, the service of authorized carriers was not obtainable. In June 1951 it sought service out of Tillamook Bay from three water common carriers. One of them replied that it could not provide the necessary facilities; another was unable to quote rates at that time; and the third, while complaining about applicant's competition, did not offer to handle the shipments. The use of applicant's proposed service by the shipper would be dependent to some extent upon market conditions on the west coast, especially in California, and the charges to be made by it. If the application is granted the shipper intends to move as many shipments as possible in applicant's service. The shipper desires to utilize applicant's proposed service because of certain attractive time-saving features provided by the latter which cannot be obtained from presently authorized water carriers. Since applicant possesses the only dock on Tillamook Bay, the shipper is relieved of the necessity of procuring dock facilities. Applicant also furnishes loading and unloading equipment and secures the necessary cargo insurance. The shipper is quoted a rate which not only covers actual tran-portation costs but also includes wharfage, loading and unloading service and insurance charges. The complete service of fered by applicant has induced the shipper to consider water transportation from Tillamook Bay whereas it did not consider such trans portation previously because of the difficulty attached to obtaining the type of service desired. It is apparent from the foregoing that there is a need by shippers for service such as proposed by applicant which has not been met by existing carriers. Water common carriers holding authority to serve all ports along the Pacific coast have displayed a lack of interest in the traffic available at Tillamook Bay, as shown by the supporting shipper which has unsuccessfully sought their services. Applicant offers shippers a complete water transportation service which includes the loading and unloading of vessels and the use of its dock facility at Tillamook Bay. We conclude that a grant of authority as hereinafter set forth in our finding will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. There are two matters resulting from the several water transportation enterprises engaged in by Curtis and Henry Sause, Jr., the officers and directors of the instant applicant, which require consideration. One is the problem of duplicate authority now being held by Henry Sause, Jr., and Curtis Sause, a partnership, doing business as Sause Towing Co., and the other is the question of dual operations arising out of the possession of a certificate to operate as a common carrier by water by Henry Sause, Sr., and Curtis Sause, a partnership, doing business as Henry Sause and Son. In Sause Contract Carrier Application, supra, Henry Sause, Jr., and Curtis Sause, the sole and controlling stockholders of the applicant herein, were authorized, so far as here material, to conduct operations as a contract carrier by water by non-self-propelled vessels with the use of separate towing vessels, in interstate or foreign commerce, in the transportation of lumber, and rough and finished lumber products, from ports in Oregon along the Pacific coast to Coos Bay, and to ports along the Columbia River and its tributaries below and including Portland. The above-described authority is duplicated, in part, by the proposed operations to the extent specifically of permitting transportation from Tillamook Harbor to Coos Bay and to points along the Columbia River below and including Astoria. In view of the single management and control existing over the partnership and the applicant herein, we shall eliminate from our findings hereinafter set forth the portions of the proposed operations which duplicate the authority previously granted to the partnership of Henry Sause, Jr., and Curtis Sause. See Dorothy Phillips S. S. Co. Contract Carrier Application, 250 I. C. C. 391. Section 310 of the act, in effect, provides that no person or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person, shall hold both a permit to operate as a contract carrier and a certificate to operate as a common carrier unless for good cause shown the Commission shall find that both a permit and a certificate may be so held consistently with the public interest and the national transportation policy. In Sause Common Carrier Application (not printed in full) 265 I. C. C. 809, Curtis Sause and his father, doing business as partners, were authorized to conduct operations as a comnon carrier by towing vessels in the performance of general towage between ports and points on Tillamook Bay and its tributaries, in interstate or foreign commerce. In granting these rights we took cognizance of the contract-carrier operations of the instant applicant and concluded that it was not likely that undue preference between shippers would result by allowing the partnership to continue operations as a common carrier in the performance of general towage within the limited area of Tillamook Bay and its tributaries. The proposed extension of operations set forth in the instant application will not appreciably affect or aggravate the relationship or conditions existing between the partnership operating as a common carrier in the performance of general towage and the applicant in barging lumber and lumber products. We conclude that the added dual operations occasioned by the grant herein to Sause Bros. Ocean Towing Co., Inc., of authority to perform certain additional operations from Tillamook Bay will not be inconsistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. We find that operation by applicant as a contract carrier by water, by non-self-propelled vessels with the use of separate towing vessels, in interstate or foreign commerce, in the transportation of lumber and lumber products from ports and points on Tillamook Bay and its tributaries to all ports and points along the Pacific coast and its tributaries, except points on San Francisco Bay, Coos Bay, the Columbia River and Puget Sound, will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the provisions of part III of the act and the requirements, rules, and regulations prescribed by the Commission thereunder; and that an amended permit should be issued authorizing such operation, in addition to those specified in its present permit, subject, however, to general conditions which are necessary to carry out with respect to such operations the requirements of part III of the act, and the orders, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder. The application will in all other respects be denied. A third amended permit and order superseding and canceling the second amended permit and order of April 12, 1951, will be issued. 285 I. C. C. No. FF-185 (SUB-NO. 1)1 ADANAC FREIGHT FORWARDERS LTD. EXTENSION OF OPERATIONS Submitted March 27, 1952. Decided June 4, 1952 Extension of service by applicant as a freight forwarder of commodities generally from all points in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and from Omaha, Nebr., Tulsa, Okla., Louisville, Ky., Memphis, Tenn., and Atlanta, Ga., to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, except to the extent such service is authorized by its present permit, found to be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Amended permit issued. R. S. Jackson and Gordon M. Bride for applicant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS MAHAFFIE, JOHNSON, AND MITCHELL BY DIVISION 4: 2 By application filed October 24, 1951, under the provisions of section 410 of the Interstate Commerce Act, Adanac Freight Forwarders Ltd., a Canadian corporation, of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, seeks a permit authorizing extension of its services to include the forwarding in interstate commerce of metals and metal articles, automobile and airplane parts and accessories, chemicals and chemical compounds, cabinets, rubber articles, and other commodities listed in the tariff items enumerated in item 1004 of Trans-Continental Freight Bureau's west-bound tariff No. 1-A, except to the extent such commodities are authorized to be forwarded under its present permit; and to extend its operation territorially to include service from points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Caro 1 This report also embraces for the purpose of giving effect to the determination herein, No. FF-185, Adanac Freight Forwarders Ltd. Freight Forwarder Application. 'Pursuant to permit issued October 14, 1949, in No. FF-185, applicant is authorized to operate as a freight forwarder of machinery and machinery parts, electrical goods, iron and steel articles, and automobile parts and accessories from all points in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and from Omaha, Nebr., Tulsa, Okla., Louisville, Ky., Memphis, Tenn., and Atlanta, Ga., to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, insofar as such transportation takes place in the United States. lina, to Vancouver, insofar as such operation takes place within the United States. Acme Fast Freight, Inc., National Carloading Corporation, and Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., Inc., oppose the application. The parties waived issuance of a proposed report. Applicant has been engaged in freight-forwarder service since 1937, and its modus operandi is described in Adanac Freight Forwarders F. F. Application, 265 I. C. C. 493 and 627. Briefly, applicant serves approximately 350 shipper-consignees in the Vancouver area which receive shipments from various points in the United States. Shipments routed in its service are assembled and consolidated at Chicago. There they are consolidated into carload lots and moved by rail to Vancouver for break bulk and distribution. Applicant has held itself out to forward shipments of all commodities which move in mixed carloads to Vancouver under the transcontinental rates published in various items of Trans-Continental Freight Bureau's westbound tariff 1 series. As pointed out in the prior reports, shipments which moved in applicant's service originated generally in the territory east of the Mississippi River. In addition to the points specified in its present permit, applicant has handled shipments moving from Portland, Maine, Charleston, and Huntington, W. Va., Norfolk, Richmond, and Roanoke, Va., Manchester, N. H., Wilmington, Del., Ashville, Charlotte and Salem, N. C., and Camden and Charleston, S. C. Thus, applicant has served points in each State covered by the application except Maryland and Vermont. These States cover but a small part of the general territory served and are adjacent to those States which have been served. Section 410 (e) of the act provides that permits shall specify the territories from and to which service may be performed. Therefore, we shall consider the origin territory in which applicant operates as a whole, and inasmuch as service has been performed from the general territory in which Maryland and Vermont are located, such service is sufficient proof that applicant has engaged in serving the origin territory covered by the application. Applicant's president was the only witness to appear in support of the application. He explained that upon the issuance of the permit in No. FF-185, the understanding of applicant's officers was that authority had been granted to serve the "entire part" of eastern territory and to forward all commodities shown in the tariff items named in item 1004 of Trans-Continental Freight Bureau's west-bound tariff 1-A. Based on this understanding applicant has continued to serve such territory uninterruptedly, including points in the States covered by the instant application, whenever requested so to do by its Vancouver patrons. The absence of appropriate authority was first |