of 42 cents, volume minimum 30,000 pounds, on antifreeze from New Orleans to Birmingham, Ala. The respondent's witness expressed the opinion that if the proposed rate became effective it would not affect the movement of liquors from other points, and that it would be confined to the points under consideration. The latter statement is based on the fact that the rate of $1.03 on drugs from Atlanta to New Orleans has not spread to other points. The short-line highway distance between New Orleans and Columbus is 447 miles, and over the route traversed by McDonough Motor Express, Inc., by way of Meridian, Miss., to Montgomery, the point of interchange, and thence over the respondent's line to Columbus, the distance is 465 miles. The suspended rate for the latter distance would yield 5 cents per ton-mile. In the form in which it is published, however, it includes an allowance to shippers of 5 cents for pick-up at origin and 5 cents for delivery at destination, if the shippers perform such services. The volume ratings published by rail and motor carriers do not make these allowances unless the shipments move through Government warehouses. The rates of Coast Transportation Co., Inc., and connecting carriers provide an allowance at New Orleans of 3 cents to shippers for delivery of shipments to, or pick-up from, the docks of the Coast Transportation Co., Inc. During August and November 1939 and January 1940, three shipments of alcoholic liquors moved over the route of Coast Transportation Co., Inc., and William Ray Maxwell Truck Lines from New Orleans to the liquor dealer at Columbus, for whose benefit respondent proposed the suspended rate. These shipments weighed more than 20,000 pounds each. The dealer did not appear in support of the proposed rate, and upon this record it cannot be said that he is unable to handle shipments of liquor except in less-than-truckload quantities. Nor does it appear that he requires a reduction in the present lessthan-truckload rates from New Orleans for competitive reasons. We have said frequently that the normal basis of rates for lessthan-truckload shipments is the classification basis. See Wilson Truck Co., Inc., Commodities, Midwest and South, 19 M. C. C. 742. This is especially true in the case of high-grade traffic such as alcoholic liquors. Motor common carriers should not establish commodity rates for application on less-than-truckload shipments of this traffic except for compelling circumstances, which are not present in this proceeding. Here the proposed rate is not designed to meet the competition of other carriers but is intended solely for the benefit of one shipper. It represents a substantial reduction from the classification rating when measured in percentage of first class, and while it might give the motor carriers, parties thereto, a temporary ad vantage, it would probably be followed by a reduction in the rates of the water-truck carriers to restore the existing relations with alltruck rates. It also appears that if the proposed rate became effective it would cause other reductions throughout southern territory in adjustments of both motor and rail rates which are at present satisfactory to a majority of shippers and carriers, eventually impairing the revenues of all carriers participating in the traffic. We find that the suspended rate is unreasonably low and therefore unlawful. An order will be entered requiring the cancelation of the suspended schedules and discontinuing this proceeding. ALLDREDGE, Commissioner, concurring: I am not sure that the finding in the report that the suspended rate is "unreasonably low" is adequately supported if by such a finding it is meant that the rate is improperly related to the cost of service. I think that the suspended rate should be condemned primarily on the ground that it is unjust, improperly related to other rates, an unlawful classification of property for transportation purposes, and at variance with a proper distribution of the general rate burden; all in contravention of sections 202 (a) and 216 (b) and (i) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. 23 M. C. C. INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. M-691 LINDLEY TRUCK CO., COMMODITIES IN MIDWESTERN STATES Submitted November 15, 1939. Decided June 4, 1940 1. Proposed truckload commodity rates on cottonseed products from Little Rock, Ark., to Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., found unlawful. Suspended schedule ordered canceled. 2. Proposed truckload commodity rates on other commodities from and to certain points in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee ordered canceled, because respondent withdrew the rates from consideration or has no authority to transport from the origin points. 3. Proceeding discontinued. Rex W. Perkins for respondent. W. H. Fitzpatrick and L. E. Wells for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, EASTMAN, AND SPLAWN BY DIVISION 2: By schedules filed to become effective May 1, 1939, the respondent, Lester Lindley, doing business as Lindley Truck Company, of Springdale, Ark., proposes to establish changes in commodity rates on various commodities, in truckloads, from and to certain points in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Upon protest of the Mid-Western Motor Freight Tariff Bureau, Inc., hereinafter called Mid-Western, that the proposed rates would be unduly low and noncompensatory, operation of the schedules was suspended until July 30, 1939, further suspended until October 28, 1939, and voluntarily postponed by the respondent until July 27, 1940. MidWestern and Powell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc., of Springfield, Mo., appeared in opposition to the proposed rates. At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent, with the approval of the protestants, stated that he desired to withdraw and cancel certain of the suspended rates. No evidence was adduced concerning these rates, and they will be ordered canceled. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds. Evidence was presented concerning the lawfulness of the proposed local commodity rates (1) on cottonseed cake, meal, and screenings, in bags, of 25 cents, minimum 16,000 pounds, from Little Rock, Ark., to Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., 416 miles; (2) on lard, lard compounds and substitutes, vegetable cooking oils, chemicals, vegetable stearine, and margarine oil, in bags or containers, minimum 10,000 pounds, from Memphis, Tenn., to certain points in Arkansas and Oklahoma, Kansas City, Wichita, Kans., and Springfield; and (3) on certain commodities listed under a general description of fresh meats and packing-house products, minimum 12,000 pounds, from Topeka and Wichita, Kans., and Oklahoma City, Okla., to Eudora, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Pine Bluff, and Texarkana, Ark., and Memphis, and from Wichita to Hot Springs, Ark. In Lindley Common Carrier Application, 22 M. C. C. 63, decided February 26, 1940, respondent's operating rights to transport property in interstate or foreign commerce were determined, and, among other things, he was denied authority to transport property from Memphis, Oklahoma City, Topeka, and Wichita. On June 3, 1940, the Commission denied a rehearing of that decision. As the respondent has no operating rights from these points, he may not maintain local rates therefrom. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the proposed rates from these points, and they will be ordered canceled. There remains for consideration only the proposed rate of 25 cents on the cottonseed products, which, on the basis of the minimum, would yield 9.6 cents per truck-mile. The corresponding rate of the protestants is the fifth-class rate of 65 cents, minimum 16,000 pounds, which yields 25 cents per truck-mile. The respondent's only evidence concerning the rate of 25 cents is that it was proposed at the request of interested shippers, and to enable him to compete for shipments on an equal basis with a certain motor contract carrier now transporting this traffic. The actual rate of the contract carrier is not disclosed. There were received in evidence, offered by the protestants, copies of certain exhibits which are a part of the record in Ex Parte No. MC-23, Midwestern Motor Carrier Rates, which is now pending. These exhibits, prepared by the accounting section of the Commission's Bureau of Motor Carriers, are copies of, and extracts from, summaries of income statements contained in reports filed by class I motor common carriers of property who apparently are respondents in Ex Parte No. MC-23. The statistics are based on the reports of operating revenues, expenses, and income for 1937 and the first 9 months of 1938. From these data the protestants extracted the figures for 1937 of 64 carriers, which purport to show an average operating cost per truck-mile of 20.3 cents on 148,650,000 vehicle-miles operated. Respondent objected to the receipt of this matter in evidence. Statistics, tables, and figures contained in the annual or other reports of carriers made to the Commission as required under the Interstate Commerce Act must be received in evidence, by virtue of the provisions of section 16 (13) of part I and section 204 (f) of part II, as prima facie evidence of what they purport to be, and copies of, or extracts from, these reports, if certified by the secretary, under the Commission's seal, must be received in evidence with like effect as the originals. The exhibits were offered, however, not as extracts from the carriers' reports on file with the Commission but as a true copy of the record in another proceeding, subject to objection, under rule XIII (b) (2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. The data were originally prepared for use in a proceeding involving the general revenues of all motor common carriers serving a large area. Statistics of carriers are included which do not operate within the territory served by respondent herein, or which operate only partly within that territory. There is no separation of the costs of longhaul and short-haul traffic, terminal operations, and less-than-truckload and truckload traffic, and no showing of the variations in costs in relation to the different types of freight transported, or of the range of costs included in the grand average of 20.3 cents. In the absence of these data, a general statement of the grand average cost per truck-mile of a group of carriers engaged in varied operations is of little evidentiary value. Protestant Powell Bros. is a competitor of the respondent, and operates as a motor common carrier of property within the same general territory, including a regular route between Little Rock and Kansas City. It submitted in evidence an operating-cost analysis for the period January 1 to June 30, 1939, which shows that on 2,181,248 truck-and-trailer-miles operated, transporting a total of 32,831 tons of freight, its average cost was 17.4 cents per truck-andtractor-mile and 3.4 cents per ton-mile. A witness for Mercury Motors, Incorporated, of Fort Smith, another competitor of respondent, stated that during 1938 it operated 502,077 miles at an average cost per truck-mile of 18.5 cents, and that for the first half of 1939, on 245,766 miles, its average cost per truck-mile was 20.2 cents. The details of these figures are not of record, but the results were obtained by dividing the entire cost of the operation by the total miles operated. Although the protestants' evidence relating to costs of operation is deficient in numerous respects, we are of the opinion that they have sustained the burden of proving that the proposed rate would be unreasonably low. The respondent made no attempt to meet the testimony of his competitors concerning their operating costs. The re |