representing the shipper, it would be impracticable to ship this material by rail because the value thereof in California is less than the rail charges from Freeport to California points. For example, at Los Angeles the sale price of 50 percent caustic soda solution is the equivalent of $3.24 per 100 pounds whereas the rail charges amount to $3.51 per 100 pounds.

For purposes of economy, the shipper also desires to ship dry cargo with the liquid chemical on the same vessel to Los Angeles for ultimate delivery to its California warehouses. Only about 1,000 to 1,500 tons of dry cargo would move per voyage and only two trips each year are contemplated. This represents a small proportion of the volume of dry cargo shipped by rail from the Dow Chemical Company plant at Freeport to California. The shipper expressed the view that the movement of dry chemical by water will, as a whole, have no adverse effect on rail carriers because such carriers would participate in the haul from the Los Angeles terminal to California warehouses and in an expanded outbound movement of the company's products, made possible by the economies realized in increased water transportation of inbound materials.

Protestants provide through routes and services and have adequate equipment and facilities for rail transportation of the commodities involved from Freeport to California destinations. They point out that the desire of the shipper for applicant's service is limited to two voyages annually and solely to the transportation of liquid caustic soda solution, packaged chemicals, and magnesium pigs or ingots; and that the proposed authority, if granted, would enable the establishment of a year-round service for the transportation of all chemicals which, in their view, would have the effect of placing rail service on a standby basis for this traffic. They contend that, based on the showing of record, the granting of the authority sought is not warranted; and that the application should be denied.

It appears that the proposed operation would afford low-cost transportation for the movement of certain commodities, which service is sought by the shipper supporting the application. Moreover, the carrying of liquid caustic soda on the same vessel with other cargo would be practical and efficient to the carrier while enabling the shipper to market its products in California. We believe that the granting of the application to the extent indicated below would be in the public interest.

On the showing of record applicant proposes to provide service for the transportation of liquid caustic soda solution, in bulk, in lots of 5,000 tons or more, and in the same vessel therewith, magnesium pigs or ingots, in bundles, and glycols, latices, and other chemicals except sulphur, in drums or bags, for not more than 3 shippers

on any 1 voyage. The authority to be granted herein will be so limited.

We find that an extension of applicant's present operation to include service as a contract carrier, by self-propelled vessels, for not more than 3 shippers on any 1 voyage, in the transportation of liquid caustic soda solution, in bulk, in lots of 5,000 net tons or more, and in the same vessel therewith, magnesium pigs or ingots, in bundles, and glycols, latices and other chemicals except sulphur, in drums or bags, from Freeport to Los Angeles, 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 and order should be issued authorizing such operation in addition to that 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. In all other respects the application will be denied. An appropriate amended permit and order will be issued.

285 I. C. C.

No. FF-95 (SUB-NO. 3)1

LIFSCHULTZ FAST FREIGHT EXTENSION-WISCONSIN

Decided July 6, 1955

Upon reconsideration, findings in prior report, 285 I. C. C. 569, that extension of applicant's services to include the forwarding of commodities generally between points in, north, and east of Maryland and Pennsylvania, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, not included in its present permit, is consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy, reversed. Application denied. Appearances as shown in prior report and, in addition, L. C. Major, Jr., and James M. Verner for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COMMISSION:

In the prior report, 285 I. C. C. 569, decided October 19, 1954, the Commission, division 4, found that the proposed extension of service by applicant, a partnership,2 doing business as Lifschultz Fast Freight, of Chicago, Ill., as a freight forwarder, in interstate commerce, of commodities generally between points in, north, and east of Maryland and Pennsylvania, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Iowa and Wisconsin, not included in its present permit, and points in Michigan, would be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. A fifth amended permit and order authorizing this service was issued on October 19, 1954, to become effective on December 27, 1954. Upon joint petition of protestants, Universal Carloading and Distributing Company, Inc., and Acme Fast Freight, Inc., the proceeding was reopened for reconsideration and the effective date of the permit and order postponed until the further order of the Commission. A restatement of the facts will be limited to those necessary in determining the issues presented for reconsideration.

Applicant and its predecessors have been in operation as a freight forwarder since 1899, as described in Lifschultz Fast Freight Exten

1 This report also embraces, for the purpose of giving effect to the determination herein. Nos. FF-95, Lifschultz Fast Freight Application, FF-95 (Sub-No. 1), Lifschultz Fast Freight Extension-Eastbound to New England, and FF-95 (Sub-No. 2), Lifschultz Fast Freight Extension-West and Midwest.

2 The present members of the partnership are Sidney B. Lifschultz, Ida Lifschultz, Bernice Brown, Rose Grossman, Nora Bergman, and American National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, executor.

3

sion-West and Midwest, 265 I. C. C. 431. Applicant is authorized presently to operate as a freight forwarder (1) of commodities generally between points in Maryland and Pennsylvania and points in the United States north and east thereof, on the one hand, and on the other, points in certain counties in southern Wisconsin, northern Illinois, and northwestern Indiana, and in Iowa along the west bank of the Mississippi River; and (2) of commodities generally (except when imported or consigned for export) between the points in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as described in footnote 3, on the one hand, and, on the other, all points in Minnesota, Texas, and California. The authority sought by the instant application would extend applicant's service between the eastern area presently served, and all points in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. As above shown, the presently authorized territories in Wisconsin and Iowa have been limited, and no authority to or from Michigan points has heretofore been granted the applicant.

Petitioners point out that the applicant has conducted services outside the territories embraced in its present permit, which they insist are unlawful, and that it has failed to provide in reasonable measure all the service authorized thereunder, as a result of which certain rights, in their opinion, have become dormant. They contend that in view of applicant's unauthorized operations, and its disregard of the terms and conditions of its permit, it is not ready, able, and willing to perform the proposed service, and that the granting of the proposed rights would not be consistent with the public interest. Petitioners further contend that applicant should be required to surrender its nonused operating rights in the event we determine that additional operating rights should be authorized.

The nonused rights referred to by protestants are those granted applicant in 1948 in Lifschultz Fast Freight Extension-West and Midwest, supra, which authorized extension of its operations as a forwarder of commodities generally between points in the midwestern territory described in footnote 3, on the one hand, and points in Minnesota, Texas, and California, on the other. At least until the time of the hearing herein, in November 1953, applicant never exercised the authority granted in that proceeding, although the permit issued in connection therewith provides that the holding of the permit is conditioned upon the exercise of the authority specified. In explanation of its failure to exercise those rights, applicant insists that it

Milwaukee, Waukesha, Jefferson, Dane, Iowa, Grant, Lafayette, Greene, Rock, Walworth, Racine, and Kenosha Counties, Wis.; Lake County, Ind.; in Illinois north of and including Adams, Brown, Cass, Menard, Logan, De Witt, Piatt, Champaign, and Vermilion Counties; and in Iowa along the west bank of the Mississippi River from Dubuque to Keokuk, inclusive.

would not be economical or practical to serve Minnesota, Texas, and California to and from midwestern points without being able, at the same time, to serve those States to and from the entire eastern territory presently served by it in connection with its other operations, authority for which was denied in the same proceeding.

In his proposed report, the examiner recommended that the proposed extension be authorized upon condition that the applicant file, within a specified time, a request for cancellation of the authority granted in Lifschultz Fast Freight Extension-West and Midwest, supra, and that the issuance of a permit and order, amended accordingly, be withheld pending receipt of such request. The proposed condition was excepted to by the applicant as the exaction of a penalty, without prior notice, and contrary to the revocation provisions of section 410 (f) of the act. In the prior report, division 4 expressed the opinion that the nonuse of the applicant's operating authority to points in Minnesota, Texas, and California should not serve as a bar to a grant of the instant application. In view of our conclusions herein, this phase of the proceeding need not be further discussed. Under the proposed plan of operation, shipments to and from Wisconsin points would be served through applicant's Milwaukee terminal, and Iowa points through its Chicago terminal. Michigan traffic would be handled in one of three ways: (1) Upper Peninsula freight (above Wisconsin) would move through Milwaukee; (2) shipments to or from the southwestern portion of the Lower Peninsula, through Chicago; and (3) shipments to or from the balance of the Lower Peninsula, through a Detroit terminal. Motor common carriers would be used from off-line points of origin to assembly terminals and from break-bulk points to ultimate destinations. The applicant would maintain rates for the proposed service on the same level as those of competing forwarders.

Evidence in support of the application was presented by 20 individuals representing shippers of freight which either ship to, or receive merchandise from, points in the areas sought to be served. These shippers handle a wide range of commodities, including automotive parts, department-store merchandise, sporting goods, Boy Scout equipment and supplies, hosiery and allied products, baby electrical appliances such as bottle warmers and sterilizers, men's clothing, welding and excavating machines, and radio, television, and air-conditioning equipment. Some of the shippers have both eastbound and westbound traffic, while others have only freight which moves in one direction. Included among the points from or to which they ship are Burlington, McGregor, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, and Sioux City, Iowa; Escanaba, Gladstone, Grayling, Detroit, Bay City,