ing its transportation in the involved territory, and that of a contract carrier to certain destinations.

The superintendent of Hinde & Dauch Paper Company testified that applicant's proposed service is desirable, in that extra-long watertight equipment will be furnished to meet their requirements in the shipment of corrugated boxes from Chicago to manufacturers of other products located at points in Wisconsin, and at South Bend, La Porte, Gary, and Hammond, Ind. He stated that this traffic is not desired by common carriers because of its bulkiness and light loading, and that therefore considerable difficulty had been experienced in obtaining adequate common-carrier service. For similar reasons the witness for the National Box Company would use applicant's proposed service for the transportation of wooden boxes from Chicago to Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Benton Harbor, and Detroit, Mich., Hammond, Gary, Valparaiso, Indianapolis, La Fayette, Muncie, and Marion, Ind., Davenport, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and Sioux City, Iowa, and Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Madison, and La Crosse, Wis.

The traffic manager of Rathborne, Hair & Ridgeway Company testified as to its need for applicant's proposed service in the distribution of paper and wooden containers, because of difficulty encountered in obtaining satisfactory common-carrier and contractcarrier service from Chicago to poultry plants at Crescent, Estherville, Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, and Coon Rapids, Iowa, and Fort Wayne, South Bend, Elkhart, Michigan City, and La Fayette, Ind., to condensed-milk companies at Oconomowoc, Fort Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, Wis., and surrounding points, and to packers of fruits and vegetables at Niles, Berrien Springs, St. Joseph, Benton Harbor, and Holland, Mich.

The assistant traffic manager of Sears, Roebuck & Company testified that it intends to utilize applicant's proposed service in the distribution of its commodities from Chicago to retail stores and consumers located in towns throughout the territory sought to be served. He stated that applicant proposes to transport shipments of household appliances from its warehouse direct to customers' homes without special packing, and in addition to perform a specialized service, in that these appliances will be installed in the desired location in the home. On cross-examination he admitted that the services of rail and motor carriers at present utilized to perform transportation of these commodities to retail stores has been satisfactory, but that their packing requirements and deliveries only to sidewalks of customers' homes was unsatisfactory.

Protestants introduced an exhibit giving a list of certificated motor carriers at present engaged in the transportation of general com

modities between points in the territory sought to be served by applicant. We are unable to determine from the record the type of service rendered by these carriers, and there is no evidence which would indicate that the granting of the authority sought would adversely affect their interest.

The evidence shows that applicant has been engaged in transportation by motor vehicle for 22 years, carries insurance, and is qualified, financially and otherwise, to perform the proposed service. Since prior to July 1, 1935, he has been hauling, under contract with the shippers here proposed to be served, between points in Illinois and Indiana. These shippers expressed their satisfaction with his present service and their need for his proposed service. Applicant proposes to utilize approximately 176 pieces of equipment to meet their transportation requirements.

While the evidence does not show that each of the shippers proposed to be served is at present in need of applicant's service at all points in the States sought to be served from Chicago, in view of the limited number and class of commodities to be transported we are inclined to allow some latitude with respect to the territorial scope of applicant's proposed operations to take care of future demands which may arise.

The permit hereinafter granted, insofar as it relates to transportation performed under contract with Sears, Roebuck & Company will, as in Keystone Transp. Co. Contract Carrier Application, 19 M. C. C. 475, be restricted to shippers of that class.

We find that the operation of applicant is and has been that of a contract carrier by motor vehicle. We further find, in No. MC-45868, that applicant was, on July 1, 1935, and continuously since has been, in bona fide operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, over irregular routes, in the transportation under special and individual contracts or agreements with persons (as defined in section 203 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935) who operate chain retail and mail-order department stores, of such commodities as are dealt in by such stores; of panelboard, lumber and millwork and supplies, and paper and fiber and wooden boxes, of roofing and roofing materials, of electrical refrigerators, oil burners, water coolers, stokers, and air conditioners, from Chicago to all points in Lake and Porter Counties, Ind., and of rejected or returned shipments from points in the described destination territory to Chicago; that he is entitled to a permit authorizing the continuance of such operations; and that in all other respects the application should be denied.

We further find, in No. MC-45867 (Sub-No. 1), that operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier

by motor vehicle, for the transportation under special and individual contracts or agreements, with persons (as defined in section 203 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935) who operate chain retail and mailorder department stores, the business of which is the sale of general commodities, of such commodities as are dealt in by such stores, of panelboard, lumber, and millwork and supplies, of paper and fiber and wooden boxes, of roofing and roofing materials, and of electric refrigerators, oil burners, water coolers, stokers, and air conditioners from Chicago to all points in Indiana (not including Lake and, Porter Counties), Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and of rejected or returned shipments from points in the described destination territory to Chicago, over irregular routes, will be consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the act; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the provisions of the act and our requirements, rules, and regulations thereunder; and that a permit authorizing such operations should be granted.

We further find that the application in No. MC-45867 should be dismissed.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 218 of the act, with our rules and regulations thereunder, and with the requirements established in Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M. C. C. 628, an appropriate permit will be issued. An order will be entered denying the applications in Nos. MC-45868 and MC-45867 (Sub-No. 1), except to the extent granted herein, and dismissing the application in No. MC-45867.

No. MC-42261 1

LANGER TRANSPORT CORP. COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION

Submitted March 15, 1939. Decided May 20, 1940

1. Applicant in No. MC-42261 found entitled to continue operations as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, with certain exceptions, between points in New York in the area defined in New York, N. Y., Commercial Zone, 1 M. C. C. 665, on the one hand, and points in New Jersey within 40 miles of Jersey City, N. J., excluding points in New Jersey in said zone, on the other, over irregular routes, by reason of having been engaged in such operation on June 1, 1935, and continuously since. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions. Application in all other respects denied.

2. Applicant in No. 74382 found to have failed to establish her right to a permit as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, between points in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, over irregular routes, under the "grandfather" clause of section 209 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. Application denied.

Nathan Baker and Eric Eugene Ebert for applicants.

Glenn F. Morgan, H. Z. Maxwell, J. H. Flagler, E. S. Shreve, and David Brodsky for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND ALLDREDGE BY DIVISION 5:

These applications were heard on separate records, but were made the subject of a single recommended report and order. Exceptions were filed by applicants and one protestant to the order recommended by the examiner, and one applicant and that protestant filed replies. Our conclusions in No. MC-42261 differ somewhat from those recommended.

No. MC-42261.-By application 2 filed February 11, 1936, as amended, Langer Transport Corp., having its principal office in Jersey City, N. J., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing continuance of operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of general com

1 This report also embraces No. MC-74382, Bluma Langer Contract Carrier Application. * Under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935.

modities, between points in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, over irregular routes. Middle Atlantic States Motor Carriers Conference, Inc., Interstate Movers Tariff Bureau, Inc., and rail carriers operating in the territory opposed the application.

Applicant was incorporated on May 18, 1934, under the laws of New Jersey. Its president, Joseph Langer, testified that it owned 10 to 15 pieces of equipment on June 1, 1935, and, in addition, leased equipment when required and that, as of the date of the hearing, it owned 20 pieces of equipment. Applicant maintains a terminal in Jersey City. It operates as a common carrier of general commodities, with the exceptions noted, over irregular routes.

Testimony relative to applicant's operations since prior to June 1, 1935, was presented by its president. A representative of the Ruberoid Company also testified in respect to operations performed by applicant for it. Such testimony is general in character and has little probative value. Applicant introduced in evidence tabulations of shipments transported by it, supported in part by bills of lading, shipping orders, and other original records. In addition thereto, original books of entry containing information relative to shipments transported by it were offered for inspection at the hearing.

The exhibits submitted by applicant contain shipments transported during the period extending from 1933 to February 8, 1936, inclusive, which are said to be representative of the operations since prior to June 1, 1935. The evidence does not disclose that applicant had a predecessor, and the shipments, which moved prior to May 18, 1934, the date of applicant's incorporation, will not be considered herein. The exhibits show that applicant transported approximately 430 shipments of various commodities during the period May 18, 1934, to June 1, 1935, both inclusive. Of these, about 355 moved between points in the area defined in New York, N. Y., Commercial Zone, 1 M. C. C. 665, on the one hand, and points in New Jersey within 40 miles of Jersey City, on the other. Of the remaining shipments, approximately 26 were intrastate; 5 were to or from points in States not here involved; 12 were to Philadelphia, Pa., such shipments originating at Bayonne, N. J., Jersey City, and New York City; 2 were from Philadelphia to Newark, N. J.; 5 were to or from points in Connecticut; 3 were to Allentown, Pa.; 3 were to Marcus Hook, Pa.; 15 were to points in New York outside the area defined in New York, N. Y., Commercial Zone, supra, including 1 each to Goshen, Hudson, Middletown, Monticello, New

Except articles of extraordinary value, explosives or other dangerous substances, articles the transportation of which is prohibited by law, and articles or materials liable to cause damage to or impregnate other merchandise or equipment, and household goods.