and uses his discretion in selecting the motor carriers to perform the transportation. The carriers he uses compete in various respects with one another. It is plain that in the conduct of this operation applicant is a broker. No evidence was submitted to show a public demand for the proposed service of arranging transportation between all points in the United States. In the above-described operation, applicant aids the public in securing efficient and coordinated motorbus transportation over various lines, and, to the extent that such operations involve the arrangement of transportation between points other than those which applicant is authorized to serve as a common carrier, they clearly are in the public interest. However, we are of the opinion that the authority to be granted applicant should properly be restricted to operations as a broker at Westerly, Watch Hill, and Stonington in the arrangement of transportation between those points, on the one hand, and other points in the United States, on the other, except as hereinafter indicated. As seen, applicant has authority to operate as a common carrier of passengers and their baggage between Westerly and Providence over certain specified highways, serving all intermediate points, and to render charter service from Stonington, and certain other points not here pertinent, to points in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and return. Under the provisions of section 208 (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, applicant also may transport in interstate or foreign commerce special or chartered parties from points on his regular route to any point in the United States. However, it has not been shown that any useful public purpose would be served by applicant in conducting operations as a broker in arranging transportation by motor vehicle of passengers and their baggage between those points which he is authorized to serve as a common carrier. Dual authority of this kind, in our opinion, would not be consistent with the public interest, as it would lead to confusion as to whether applicant in a particular instance were operating as a common carrier or as a broker. Accordingly, the authority hereinafter granted will be limited so as to exclude the granting to applicant of this type of dual authority. We find that operation by applicant as a broker at Westerly and Watch Hill, R. I., and Stonington, Conn., in arranging transportation by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of passengers and their baggage between those points, on the one hand, and other points in the United States, except between Westerly and Providence, R. I., and points on Rhode Island Highways 3 and 3A between the two last-named points, and further excepting the arranging of transportation by motor vehicle of passengers and their baggage, (1) of special or chartered parties from Westerly and Providence and points intermediate thereto on Rhode Island Highways 3 and 3A, to points in the United States, and (2) in charter operations from Stonington to points in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and return, 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 the act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that a license authorizing such operations should be granted; and that in all other respects the application should be denied. Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of section 211 of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate license will be issued. An order will be entered denying the application except to the extent that a license is granted herein. 28 M. C. C. EX PARTE No. MC-20 TRUNK LINE TERRITORY MOTOR CARRIER RATES Decided February 13, 1941 Upon further consideration, findings and order in the original report herein prescribing minimum rates, charges, classifications, exceptions thereto, rules, and regulations for common carriers by motor vehicle between points in trunk-line territory, modified. FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5: In our original report herein, 24 M. C. C. 501, we prescribed minimum rates, charges, classifications, exceptions thereto, rules, and regulations for the transportation of property between certain points in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia. Petitions seeking modification of our prior order herein have been filed by several parties. The modifications sought are, in general, reductions in rates, changes in descriptions of commodities, or other changes in tariff provisions, for the purpose of meeting competitive rates maintained by other transportation agencies or to remove inconsistencies in the existing rate structure. Various portions of these petitions can, and will herein, be disposed of without hearing. Upon further consideration of the record and of the facts presented in the petitions, we are of the opinion and find that our previous findings and orders should be modified to prescribe as reasonable minima, the rates, ratings, charges, rules, and other provisions set forth in the appendix to the order entered herein. 28 M. C. C. No. MC-2471 TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSPORT, INCORPORATED, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION Submitted January 12, 1939. Decided February 14, 1941 Applicant found entitled to continue operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, with certain exceptions, over regular and irregular routes in Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and of specified commodities over irregular routes between points in those States, by reason of having been engaged in such operations on and continuously since June 1, 1935. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied. Stanley P. Clay for applicant. William E. Davis, R. R. Chavis, James G. Blaine, William W. Dalton, and V. H. Livingston for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5: Exceptions and replies to exceptions were filed by applicant and protestant rail carriers to the order recommended by the examiner, and the parties have been heard in oral argument. Our conclusions differ somewhat from those recommended. By an application filed January 28, 1936, under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) or 209 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, Tri-State Motor Transport, Incorporated, of Joplin, Mo., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity or a permit authorizing continuance of operations as a common or contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of general commodities, with certain exceptions,1 between points in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Illinois, over irregular routes and over regular routes numbered 1 to 7, inclusive, described in the appendix hereto, with service to all intermediate points and to Grand View and Mindenmines, Mo., Welch, Okla., and Capaldo, Walnut, West Mineral, and Carona, Kans., as off-route points. Certain railroads oppose the application. 1 Articles which, because of their weight, height, width, or oversize, cannot be transported over the highways in conformity with the legal limitations, and articles of great value such as coins, bullion, diamonds, and articles of a similar nature. In 1930 applicant began conducting the operation formerly conducted at Joplin by the Joplin Motor Transport Company, a partnership, and Merrick Truck Lines, also a partnership. In 1934 it was registered under the code of fair competition for the trucking industry, and it has been authorized to conduct operations in interstate commerce by the Public Service Commission of Missouri, the Corporation Commission of Kansas, and the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma. On June 1, 1935, its equipment included 9 trucks, 15 tractors, and 15 semitrailers, and at the time of the hearing, which was held in September 1937, it owned and operated 14 trucks, 20 tractors, and 24 semitrailers. Applicant maintains terminals at Joplin, Carthage, Springfield, St. Louis, and Kansas City, Mo., and at Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Okla. Its facilities include warehouse and dock space, offices, and repair shops. It also maintains commission agents at approximately 25 points on its regular routes. Applicant submitted exhibits listing numerous shipments handled by it prior to and since June 1, 1935, showing operations performed over both regular and irregular routes. It is shown that, in general, daily service has been provided over the regular routes, and that irregular-route operations have been conducted in accordance with the demands of the public. Applicant interchanges freight with numerous carriers. Although applicant's regular-route operations were described in the application as being conducted over seven different routes, it was explained at the hearing that the routes were so described merely for convenience, that operations are and have been conducted over all routes as a unit, and that shipments are and have been transported over the routes as described in the application or over any practical combination of those routes. It is shown that a wide variety of commodities was transported over the regular routes, including drugs, cigars, oil, matches, plumbing fittings, paint, batteries, dry goods, shoes, hardware, tires, radios, candy, canned goods, groceries, building materials, glass, wire, fireworks, and many other commodities too numerous to name specifically here. There is no showing that applicant ever transported liquid commodities in bulk. Applicant's secretary-treasurer testified that free collection and delivery service was offered at St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, Joplin, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City. He explained that shipments destined to the vicinity of these points were billed to these points, although they actually moved to places within the surrounding metropolitan areas. In the vicinity of St. Louis, applicant served Granite City, Madison, Venice, Brooklyn, and East St. Louis, Ill., Webster Groves, Wellston, University City, Kirkwood, and Richmond Heights, |