proposed rating on the articles and in the territory described in the appendix. An appropriate order is entered herewith. Paper; blotting; printing, other than newsprint; vegetable parchment (other than crinkled): wrapping or wrappers, oiled, waxed, or other than oiled or waxed; Bags, paper, not otherwise indexed in the national motor freight classification; Boxes, other than corrugated, knocked down flat, or folded flat; Between Points in the treated territory between which "east" ratings apply.. Proposal No. L-9 of Central Motor Freight Bureau, Inc. Rating (class) L. T. L. 55 23 M. C. C. EX PARTE No. MC-31 TARIFFS OF FORWARDING COMPANIES Submitted April 11, 1940. Decided May 7, 1940 Tariffs naming what purport to be joint rates between certain freight-forwarding companies and certain motor carriers found not to be in consonance with section 217 (a) of Motor Carrier Act, 1935, and to be improperly on file, and required to be stricken from the files. BY THE COMMISSION: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION In our supplemental report in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 17 M. C. C. 549, decided July 24, 1939, after the issuance of an order to show cause why such action should not be taken, we found that certain tariffs purporting to name joint rates between Acme Fast Freight, Inc., and three other named forwarding companies, hereinafter collectively referred to as the Acme, on the one hand, and certain motor carriers, on the other, were not in consonance with section 217 (a) of part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, and with our regulations thereunder, that such tariffs were improperly on file here, that to permit those or similar tariffs to be filed or kept on file here was not in the public interest, that such tariffs were void and their use unlawful, and that they should be rejected and stricken from our files. An appropriate order, which has not yet become effective, was entered. The validity of that order has been sustained by the courts. Acme Fast Freight, Inc., v. United States, 30 Fed. Supp. 968, 309 U. S. 638. The foregoing action by us was taken after we had found, basically, (1) that there is no provision in the act which permits common carriers other than those subject thereto, or forwarders occupying the status of shippers, to file tariffs of their charges with this Commission, (2) that the act prohibits joint rates between motor carriers subject to the act and forwarding companies, such as the Acme, which do not conduct motor-vehicle operations, and (3) that the Acme tariffs referred to are not in fact tariffs or schedules within the meaning of either section 6 of part I or section 217 of part II, or any provision of the act, and that therefore the Acme had and has no right to file such documents with us, or to keep them on file, as tariffs or schedules. By order of October 2, 1939, and supplemental order of October 9, 1939, we cited 47 additional persons or companies (all of which we had reason to believe were engaged in freight-forwarding operations similar to those of the Acme, and which have tariffs on file with us. purporting to name joint rates between such persons or companies and certain motor carriers), together with such motor carriers, to show cause, if any, by formal return to be filed on or before October 23, 1939, stating specifically the grounds relied upon, why such tariffs, as specified in appendix B to said order or in said supplemental order, should not be rejected and stricken from our files. Of those 47 respondents, 13, set forth in table I of the appendix hereto, failed to file with us any return to such order or supplemental order to show cause. We consider such failure as an admission that their tariffs of so-called joint rates with motor carriers should be striken from our files. Earl O. Niles, doing business as Niles Carting, also failed to make a return to the orders referred to. However, since the issuance of those orders, in the absence of exceptions to a recommended order and of protest against the issuance of a certificate, in docket No. MC-17431 this respondent has been granted certain common-carrier rights, and we have now no reason to believe that he is engaged in the business of freight forwarding under tariffs on file here. In addition, the applications for certificates, permits, or licenses of 7 of those named in table I of the appendix, all of which are sufficiently identified by the titles of the proceedings set forth in the footnote,1 after full hearing, have been denied on the ground that the applicants are forwarders. All of the remaining 33 respondents have filed with us applications for certificates, permits, or licenses under appropriate provisions of the act. A number of respondents which filed returns to our orders insist that action herein with respect to their tariffs similar to that in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, supra, should not be taken without specifically passing upon their applications and without a hearing. A full hearing upon their applications has been granted to all of respondents listed in table II of the appendix hereto. In most instances such hearing was oral, supplemented by documentary proof. In several instances applicants filed with us statements of facts in lieu of oral hearing. With two exceptions, division 5 has 1 No. MC-37347, Anchor Forwarding & Distributing Company Common Carrier Application; No. MC-48547, Central Forwarding Company Broker Application; Highway Exp. & Forwarding Co. Com. Car. Application, 21 M. C. C. 116; Pacific States Exp. Common Carrier Application, 20 M. C. C. 803; No. MC-11571, Robert Anderson, doing business as Petaluma & Santa Rosa Express Co., Common Carrier Application; Texas Freight Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 10 M. C. C. 680; No. MC-94398, David F. Harms, doing business as Trans Seas Shipping Co., Common Carrier Application. 2 found, in reports cited in the footnote and duly served upon the parties, that the operations of such respondents are in all essentials similar to the forwarding operations considered in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, supra, and has denied the applications. One of the exceptions is the General Carloading Company, Inc., the common-carrier application of which in docket No. MC-40032 was denied without report in the absence of any exceptions to the proposed report and order of the examiner recommending such denial. The other exception is the Modern Carloading Company, whose application for a brokerage license, in docket No. MC-31983, upon request of the applicant was dismissed. It has no other application pending before us. The return to our supplemental order to show cause made by this respondent admits that it is a forwarder in all respects similar to the Acme. The other contentions made by respondents named in table II of the appendix are in every respect similar to contentions urged by the Acme and considered in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, supra. No good purpose would be served by again discussing them here. A number of motor carriers participating in some of the forwarder tariffs herein required to be stricken made returns to our orders to show cause. Their principal contentions are that they have a legal right to maintain joint rates with forwarding companies such as the Acme, and that if they are prohibited from making such joint rates they will be deprived of a large volume of their business. For the reasons set forth in the report just referred to, the former contention is untenable, and the latter contention, of course, cannot be permitted to outweigh the requirements of the law. Numerous shippers, and associations thereof, which now use the forwarders for the movement of traffic, have petitioned us to withhold action against these tariffs, on the principal grounds (1) that to reject them would deprive many small localities of fast, dependable, and economical transportation which is now afforded only through the forwarders, and would result in increased freight charges and impaired transportation service to the detriment of petitioners, 2 Central States Frt. Service, Inc., Broker Application, 21 M. C. C. 285; Corpus Christi Distributing Serv., Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 17 M. C. C. 538; Flynn Forwarding Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 19 M. C. C. 614; Gulf Carloading Co. of Texas, Inc., Com. Car. Application, 19 M. C. C. 623; Highway Lake Freight Co. Com. Car. Application, 21 M. C. C. 113; International Forwarding Co. Com. Car. Application, 22 M. C. C. 581; Lone Star Package Car Co., Inc., Com. Car. Application, 19 M. C. C. 603; Merchants Shippers Assn., Inc., Com. Car. Application, 21 M. C. C. 197; National Carloading Corp. Common Carrier Application, 21 M. C. C. 309; Springmeier Shipping Co. Common Carrier Application, 19 M. C. C. 627; Texas Package Car Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 19 M. C. C. 620; Universal Carloading & Distr. Co., of Del., Com. Car. Applic., 22 M. C. C. 491. and (2) that there is some probability that legislation may shortly be enacted placing forwarding companies under our regulation and authorizing joint rates between them and carriers subject to our jurisdiction. Our action here, as in Acme Fast Freight Inc., Common Carrier Application, supra, is of course directed not against service such as that which is now being rendered by forwarders, but against what we regard as clear infractions of the Interstate Commerce Act which we must administer. The reasons which impel us to these conclusions are fully set forth in the decision just referred to and will not here be repeated. We find that the operations of the respondents set forth in tables I and II of the appendix hereto, and their tariffs of so-called joint rates with motor carriers on file with us, are in all essential respects similar to those of the Acme, as found in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, supra. We further find, following that decision and for the reasons set forth in that report, that all tariffs of the respondents named in tables I and II of the appendix hereto, publishing so-called joint rates with motor carriers, are not in consonance with section 217 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act and with our regulations thereunder, that such tariffs are improperly on file here, that it is not in the public interest that these or similar tariffs should be filed or kept on file here, that such tariffs are void and their use unlawful, and that they should be rejected and stricken from our files. An appropriate order will be entered. COMMISSIONER MILLER did not participate in the disposition of this proceeding. APPENDIX TABLE I.-Respondents failing to file returns Anchor Forwarding & Distributing Company Bluebonnet Forwarding Company Central Forwarding Company Central Forwarding, Inc. James Gallagher, Inc. Hugh F. Gannon, Inc. Highway Express & Forwarding Company, Inc. Pacific States Express Petaluma & Santa Rosa Express Co. (Robert Anderson d/b/a) W. E. Stanchfield Transfer Company, Inc. Texas Freight Company, Inc. Trans Seas Shipping Co. (David F. Harms d/b/a) Universal Terminal Warehouse Company |