INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS-MOTOR CARRIER CASES No. MC-88087 E. WARNER AND H. L. SCHUITEMA COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION Decided December 17, 1938 Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicants as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of household goods, between Muskegon, Mich., on the one hand, and points in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, on the other, over irregular routes. Certificate granted, and application denied in all other respects. William J. Balgooyen for applicants. Claude H. Buzzard for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5: On November 17, 1938, the following recommended report and a recommended order appended thereto, filed with us by the examiner, were served on the parties. No exceptions to the order were filed, but on December 7, 1938, we postponed to December 17, 1938, the date on which the said order should become the order of the Commission and become effective. Not having been stayed or further postponed by us, it has become effective as our order. REPORT AND ORDER RECOMMENDED BY THE EXAMINER By application filed June 19, 1937, E. Warner and H. L. Schuitema, copartners, doing business as Warner and Schuitema Transfer Company, of Muskegon, Mich., seek a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of farm products, malt beverages and containers, and household goods, between Muskegon, Mich., and points in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio, over irregular routes. In accordance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, the matter was heard and duly referred to the examiner for the recommendation of an appropriate order thereon. Central Freight Association rail carriers opposed the granting of the application. Applicants have been in the trucking business for approximately 10 years. During that period a portion of their operations involved movements of property in interstate or foreign commerce. Under the provisions of section 206 (a) of the act a certificate must be issued to a common carrier by motor vehicle who was in operation on June 1, 1935, and has so operated continuously since, without requiring further proof of public convenience and necessity, provided such carrier filed an application for a certificate within 120 days after section 206 became effective. Applicants failed to file their application within the 120-day period. Furthermore, one of the applicant partners stated that applicants do not now perform operations outside the State of Michigan because they do not have authority to perform operations in interstate or foreign commerce. For these reasons applicants are entitled to engage in the operations for which they seek authority only to the extent that such operations are or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. Applicants have authority from the proper regulatory body of the State of Michigan to transport fruit, produce, lumber and crating material, piles, and beer. They began hauling in interstate or foreign commerce in 1931. Between 1931 and January 1, 1934, few or no records of shipments were kept since there was no such requirement at the time. However, H. L. Schuitema, testifying for the partnership, stated that during that period applicants hauled farm products and beer and performed a general household-goods moving service, in interstate or foreign commerce. Oceana County, Mich., which immediately adjoins Muskegon County on the north, is a large fruit-producing section. This fruitgrowing area serves the metropolitan area around Muskegon, which includes a population of approximately 90,000 persons. It is the desire of applicants that they be permitted to perform the incidental transportation. They also seek authority to transport fruit to Shelby and Hart, Mich., where certain canning factories are located. All of the points are within the State of Michigan, and since it does not appear that such transportation by applicants is part of a through movement of fruit to or from a point beyond Michigan, the operation is intrastate in character and is not subject to regulation under the act. In the past applicants' chief operation out of Muskegon consisted of the transportation of celery to points in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri, during the season extending from the latter part of June to the middle of December. Evidence was submitted showing 23 movements of celery from Muskegon to Cleveland, Ohio, Decatur and Chicago, Ill., St. Louis, Mo., and Indianapolis, Ind., during 1934. Although applicants desire to transport celery from Muskegon to points in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, it has not been shown that such operation will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. The documentary evidence submitted pertains only to shipments in 1934, and the record shows that no such transportation was performed in 1937 because no business was offered by shippers. Furthermore, no shippers appeared to testify that the service was desired by them. With respect to applicants' proposed transportation of malt beverages and empty containers, evidence was submitted showing six movements of beer from Joliet, Ill., to Muskegon, and of empty containers in the reverse direction. Four of these shipments were moved during 1934 and two were moved on January 7, 1935. Applicants claim that their service will be more desirable than that of other carriers for the reason that they are available at all times and no interchange of shipments will be necessary. While applicants claim to have been requested to haul beer to points in Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, it was stated that at the present time many breweries are transporting beer in their own vehicles, and applicants are uncertain as to where or when they will be called upon to perform such transportation. The only testimony offered with respect to the transportation of malt beverages was that of one of the applicant partners. H. L. Schuitema. No shipper or other witness appeared to testify that such service is or will be required by the shipping public. The evidence is not convincing that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require applicants' service in the transportation of farm products or malt beverages and containers in the manner sought. The remaining consideration to be given to the application pertains to that part wherein applicants seek authority to transport household goods between Muskegon and points in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois. and Ohio, over irregular routes. In the past applicants have engaged in the transportation of household goods in interstate commerce. At the present time, however, such transportation is confined to points in Michigan. Between 1931 and 1934 applicants performed interstate transportation, but, since it was not required, few or no records were kept. Applicants submitted evidence of five shipments of household goods during 1934 and 1935. Four of these were between Muskegon and points in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois, and one was from Youngstown, Ohio, to Grant, Mich. Applicants have special equipment for handling household goods, and their vehicles are maintained in good condition. There are only one or two truck lines now operating between Muskegon and points in other States who are authorized by the State of Michigan to transport household goods. Applicants frequently have been requested to perform such transportation to points in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio but have had to refuse because they were without the necessary authority. Applicants produced one witness who testified that there is a definite need in the community for such service. This witness is engaged in the moving, packing, and storage business, and he stated that applicants have performed service for him and have always been reliable and satisfactory. Applicants own and operate four tractors, four trailers, one straight truck, and one pick-up truck, and are financially and otherwise able to conduct the operation hereinafter authorized. The examiner finds that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicants as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of household goods, between Muskegon, on the one hand, and points in Michigan. Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, on the other, over irregular routes; that applicants are fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the provisions of the act and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder; that an appropriate certificate should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied. It is recommended that the appended order be entered. 13 M. C. C. No. MC-94759 ARROW TOWING SERVICE, INCORPORATED, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION Decided December 16, 1938 Public convenience and necessity found to require continuance of operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, limited to towing or transporting disabled motor vehicles only, between points in Washington and Oregon, over irregular routes. Certificate granted. Iris D. Goneau for applicant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5: On November 16, 1938, the following recommended report and a recommended order appended thereto, filed with us by joint board No. 45, were served on the parties. No exceptions to the order have been filed, and, not having been stayed or postponed by us, it has become effective as our order. REPORT AND ORDER RECOMMENDED BY JOINT BOARD NO. 45, COMPOSED OF A. F. HARVEY OF OREGON AND RALPH J. BENJAMIN OF WASHINGTON By application filed October 27, 1937, Arrow Towing Service, Incorporated, of Portland, Oreg., seeks a certificate authorizing operation in interstate or foreign commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle of disabled motor vehicles, between points in Washington and Oregon, over irregular routes. No protest has been filed to the granting of the application. It appearing, upon investigation of the matters involved in this application, that no hearing in respect thereof might be necessary, the application was referred to joint board No. 45 for appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. Applicant has been in operation as a common carrier performing the service described below since 1926. Application was not filed on or prior to February 12, 1936, and it is necessary, therefore, that it be found that public convenience and necessity require continuance thereof before a certificate may be granted. |