previously had been conducted by its president, William J. Hoey, under the trade name William J. Hoey Cartage Company. Its operations have been conducted under contracts, which were reduced to writing on January 2, 1935, with Central States Freight Service, Inc., and Central States Transit Company, hereinafter referred to as the Service Company and the Transit Company, respectively. Applicant has at all times confined its transportation activities to operations performed for the aforesaid companies and is therefore considered by its representatives to be a contract carrier by motor vehicle. However, applicant's attorney requested that in the event the operations conducted by applicant were found to be those of a common carrier by motor vehicle, the application be regarded as requesting the appropriate form of authority. We shall consider the application as amended accordingly.

The Service Company and the Transit Company are described respectively as a forwarder of miscellaneous freight and as a pooler or consolidator of shipments of wallpaper. Stockholders of the Service Company operate warehouses at Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., Omaha, Nebr., and Kansas City, Mo., at which points they receive and forward or distribute freight transported by applicant and other carriers for the Service Company or the Transit Company. A similar arrangement has existed with an independent warehouse for the handling of freight at Denver, Colo. Manifests covering all shipments are issued by and in the name of either the Service Company or the Transit Company, and applicant has no direct contact with the owners of the goods transported. In Central States Frt. Service, Inc., Broker Application, 21 M. C. C. 285, we stated in substance that operations of the Service Company and the Transit Company were similar to those of the freight forwarders discussed by the Commission in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 8 M. C. C. 211. In the latter proceeding the Commission stated that forwarding companies, such as the applicant therein, are engaged in common carriage for the general public, and expressed the view that shipments for which they assume responsibility cannot lose their identity as shipments in common carriage at any stage of the transportation service which the forwarding company undertakes to provide, and that they are not, therefore, shipments which lawfully can be transported by a motor contract carrier. The instant applicant has been engaged in the performance of an integral part of common carriage rendered for the general public, and it is, with respect to such operations, a common carrier by motor vehicle.

Applicant's president, who was the sole witness at the hearing, testified that applicant has been engaged since 1933 in transporting

miscellaneous goods, except explosives, heavy machinery, livestock, fresh fish, coal, ore, sand, and gravel, between points specified in the application. No bills of lading, delivery receipts, or other documentary evidence pertaining to the movements of particular shipments were submitted. However, contracts entered into by applicant with the Service Company and the Transit Company on January 2, 1935, provided for the transportation of freight from and to Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, and Denver, Colo., and "such other points as occasion may require." The routes traversed between the points served by applicant are not in all respects accurately described by the application, and the claims therein regarding operations to and from intermediate and off-route points and irregular service are not in all instances substantiated by the evidence. Applicant's principal claim to irregular-route operations appears to concern routes between Chicago and Minneapolis and St. Paul through Wisconsin, crossing the Illinois-Wisconsin State line near Lake Geneva, Wis., and the Minnesota-Wisconsin State line near Hudson, Wis. U. S. Highways 12 and 14 cross the Illinois-Wisconsin State line near Lake Geneva, and U. S. Highway 12 crosses the Minnesota-Wisconsin State line near Hudson. The evidence fails to substantiate applicant's claim to irregular-route operations and indicates that its operations have been confined to transportation over the regular routes specified in the appendix hereto.

Although applicant seeks authority to serve intermediate and offroute points generally upon call, the evidence relates only to past transportation at the intermediate points of Omaha, Kansas City, Joliet, Ill., Clinton and Davenport, Iowa, and St. Louis, Mo., and at the off-route points of Sedalia and St. Joseph, Mo., and Appleton, Wis. However, no shipments have been transported to Appleton since prior to June 1, 1935. The other points have been served with a fair degree of continuity since prior to the statutory date. Wallpaper has been transported from and to all of the intermediate or off-route points specified, but shipments of general commodities have moved only to or from the intermediate points of Omaha and Kansas City and the off-route point of St. Joseph.

Applicant owned 21 vehicles on July 1, 1935, and 29 vehicles on January 12, 1937. Its president testified that one or more units of equipment owned by applicant were at all times engaged in transportation over routes extending between Chicago, on the one hand, and St. Paul, Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, and Denver, on the other. Its operations since prior to June 1, 1935, have been conducted under appropriate authority from the States through which its routes extend. Applicant has also utilized the services of a number of owner-drivers in conducting operations over its routes, but claims

"grandfather" rights herein only with respect to operations conducted with the use of its own vehicles. Certain of the vehicles owned by applicant have been used in Chicago only, but no evidence was submitted with respect to the nature or the extent of operations performed wholly within Chicago.

We find that applicant's operations are those of a common carrier, as defined in section 203 (a) (14) of the act. We further find that applicant was, on June 1, 1935, and continuously since has been, in bona fide operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, except explosives, heavy machinery, livestock, fresh fish, coal, ore, sand, gravel, and household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, from Chicago, Ill., to Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., and Denver, Colo., over the routes specified in the appendix hereto, and return over the same routes, serving as intermediate and off-route points Omaha, Nebr., and Kansas City and St. Joseph, Mo., without restriction, and Joliet, Ill., Clinton and Davenport, Iowa, and St. Louis and Sedalia, Mo., restricted to pick-up and delivery of wallpaper only; and that by reason of such operation it is entitled to a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the continuance thereof.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An order will be entered denying the application except to the extent granted herein.

LEE, Commissioner, concurring in part:

I agree with the findings, except that I am of the opinion that applicant is a contract carrier, and that a permit should be issued instead of a certificate.

APPENDIX

Routes authorized

Route 1, between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul, over U. S. Highway 12. Route 2, between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul, over U. S. Highway 14 between Chicago and Madison, Wis., and U. S. Highway 12 between Madison and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Route 3, between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul, over U. S. Highway 30 between Chicago and its junction with U. S. Highway 218; U. S. Highway 218 between that junction and Owatonna, Minn.; and U. S. Highway 65 between Owatonna and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Route 4, between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul, over U. S. Highway 20 between Chicago and Dubuque, Iowa, and U. S. Highway 52 between Dubuque and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Route 5, between Chicago and Denver via Omaha, over U. S. Highway 30 between Chicago and its junction with U. S. Highway 138 near Big Springs,

Nebr.; U. S. Highway 138 between that junction and Sterling, Colo.; and U. S. Highway 6 between Sterling and Denver.

Route 6, between Chicago and Omaha (alternate), over U. S. Highway 34 between Chicago and its junction with Illinois Highway 92; Illinois Highway 92 between that junction and Moline, Ill.; and U. S. Highway 6 between Moline and Omaha.

Route 7, between Chicago and Omaha (alternate), over U. S. Highway 34 between Chicago and Glenwood, Iowa; U. S. Highway 275 between Glenwood and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and U. S. Highway 6 between Council Bluffs and Omaha. Route 8, between Chicago and Denver via Kansas City, over U. S. Highway 66 between Chicago and its junction with U. S. Highway Alt. 66; U. S. Highway Alt. 66 between that junction and Gardner, Ill.; U. S. Highway 66 between Gardner and St. Louis, Mo.; and U. S. Highway 40 between St. Louis and Denver.

Route 9, between Chicago and Kansas City (alternate), over U. S. Highways 66 and Alt. 66 between Chicago and Gardner as specified above; U. S. Highway 66 between Gardner and Springfield, Ill.; U. S. Highway 36 between Springfield and its junction with U. S. Highway 54 near Pittsfield, Ill.; U. S. Highway 54 between that junction and Kingdom City, Mo.; and U. S. Highway 40 between Kingdom City and Kansas City.

Route 10, between Chicago and Kansas City (alternate), over U. S. Highways 66 and Alt. 66 between Chicago and Springfield as specified above; U. S. Highway 36 between Springfield and Monroe City, Mo.; and U. S. Highway 24 between Monroe City and Kansas City.

Route 11, between Chicago and Kansas City (alternate), over U. S. Highway 30 between Chicago and Sterling, Ill.; Illinois Highway 2 between Sterling and its junction with Illinois Highway 78; Illinois Highway 78 between that junction and its junction with U. S. Highway 24; U. S. Highway 24 between that junction and Monroe City, Mo.; U. S. Highway 36 between Monroe City and Cameron, Mo.; and U. S. Highway 69 between Cameron and Kansas City.

28 M. C. C.

NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK BUS APPLICATIONS
No. MC-3 (SUB-No. 1)

GARDEN STATE LINES LINCOLN TUNNEL
APPLICATION

Decided February 19, 1941

On reconsideration, findings in prior report in No. MC-3 (Sub-No. 1), 23 M. C. C. 219, reversed, and public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle of passengers and their baggage over specified routes between the junction of Morningside Road and Hillcrest Avenue and the junction of East Ridgewood Avenue and Broad Street in Ridgewood, N. J., serving all intermediate points, and between Hackensack, N. J., and Manhattan, New York, N. Y., through the Lincoln tunnel, serving intermediate points in Hasbrouck Heights and Wood Ridge, N. J. Transportation of special and chartered parties authorized. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied.

Maurice J. Cronin, William A. Roberts, and Edgar Turlington for applicant.

John E. Buck, John F. Finerty, George M. Eichler, Leland Taliaferro, Henry P. Goldstein, G. Murphy, Robert W. Lishman, Joseph Perpigano, Grover R. James, and Arthur C. Mullen for protestants. Robert H. Doherty for intervener.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND ALLDREDGE

BY DIVISION 5:

In the prior report herein, 23 M. C. C. 219, decided May 15, 1940, we found that public convenience and necessity did not require operation by applicant in No. MC-3 (Sub-No. 1) as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of passengers over a specified route between Ridgewood, Bergen County, N. J., and central Manhattan (Fifty-first Street), New York, N. Y., through the Lincoln tunnel, and the application was denied. Upon consideration of a petition by applicant and of the record, we reopened the proceeding for reconsideration on the record as made. In its petition applicant again contends that the record adequately supports a finding that public convenience and necessity require its proposed operation to Manhattan through the Lincoln