riers coming to Kansas City. At times these loads would be destined to points in the States which applicant and Hudson at present serve. Many of the calls which applicant receives are requests to arrange the transportation of small loads, of 500 to 1,000 pounds, from Kansas City to distant points. It proposes to turn these over to motor carriers of household goods that have vehicles going to the same destinations as the small shipments with space available for additional small loads. If granted a license applicant would utilize any responsible motor carriers authorized to transport household goods to and from Kansas City. It named 14 carriers that are willing to perform such transportation. In view of the agency agreement with Hudson applicant would favor this carrier whenever possible. In arranging transportation with other motor carriers, however, applicant would exercise its discretion in the selection of carriers to perform the desired transportation, and use those able to provide the best service to destination.

Applicant solicits business direct and through advertisements in newspapers and telephone directories. If granted a license it would offer its broker service to shippers and carriers, but compensation would be paid by the carriers. A commission of 20 percent of the total transportation charge would be collected from the carrier transporting the goods as compensation for applicant's service in obtaining the business. An investigation by applicant disclosed that there are no licensed brokers in Kansas City who are authorized to arrange transportation of household goods.

Representatives of three business concerns with offices in Kansas City and branches in various cities located throughout the United States appeared in support of the application. They have used applicant's services in the past and would use the proposed broker service as a convenience to them in arranging for the transportation of the household goods of their employees who are transferred between Kansas City and the branch offices. By use of applicant's service they would be relieved of the details connected with such transportation.

Two persons representing retail furniture dealers in Kansas City also appeared in support of the application. These dealers use common carriers authorized to transport new furniture for most of their shipments, but occasionally have need for the service of a householdgoods carrier to transport uncrated new furniture which customers have purchased to be moved into their homes as part of their household goods. Although these persons stated that the dealers would use applicant's proposed service, it is clear that they would have little need for such service as they rarely ship household goods beyond the States in which applicant operates as a carrier.

A number of motor-vehicle common carriers, of Kansas City, authorized to transport household goods, in interstate or foreign commerce, oppose the application. They contend that the same services which applicant proposes to render as a broker are at present being performed by them. In support of this contention six of the carriers, and two companies that use their services, offered evidence with respect to the existing facilities. Although the record does not contain a complete description of the operating authorities of protestant motor carriers, the evidence shows that each has individual opérating authority to operate between Kansas City and several States. Several are members of Allied Van Lines, Inc., a national association of motor common carriers of household goods, which appoints carriers throughout the United States as its agents in soliciting and booking movements of household goods for its members. Others are agents for either AeroMayflower Transit Company, Greyvan Lines, Inc., or United Van Lines, Inc., which furnish Nation-wide services in the transportation of household goods. Through these facilities protestant motor carriers are able to furnish transportation to any point in the United States. Representatives of a division of Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, and Montgomery Ward & Company, who are responsible for the arranging of transportation of the household goods of company employees being transferred between Kansas City and branches in other cities, have used protestant's services which they found adequate to meet their requirements. In their opinion there is no necessity for a broker at Kansas City to arrange household-goods transportation. While this evidence shows that protestants have satisfactorily met the particular needs of these shippers, there is ample evidence that the proposed service by applicant would contribute to the expeditious rendition of a specialized and important service to numerous other shippers.

Although applicant conducted brokerage operations for several years prior to the filing of the instant application it did so undoubtedly because it was confused as to its exact status under the act. We do not believe that such unauthorized operation presents a bar to the granting of a license to it authorizing brokerage operations. The fact that applicant served a number of business concerns in Kansas City for a period of years in the past who have indicated they would again use the service if reestablished lends support to the view that the proposed brokerage operation would be in the public interest.

As seen, applicant is a common carrier operating in certain States, and acts as an agent for another common carrier operating in a number of additional States. If granted a license it would be able to act as a broker of traffic which it is authorized and able to perform itself. Such dual authority should not be granted in other than exceptional cases.

Because of the specialized service rendered by motor carriers of household goods and their particular requirements and difficulties in obtaining return loads, dual authority was granted under similar cir cumstances in Martin Transfer Co. Broker Application, 4 M. C. C. 191. Compare also Worcester Storage Co. Broker Application, 30 M. C. C. 87, and Oregon Transfer Co. Broker Application, 41 M. C. C. 233. Applicant is fitted by experience properly to discharge the functions of a broker in arranging transportation of household goods, and it is financially able to conduct the operations hereinafter authorized. We conclude that a license should be granted to applicant herein. The right is hereby reserved for future determination as to what restrictions such license should carry. Compare Leicht Transfer & Storage Co. Broker Application, 30 M. C. C. 603.

We find that operation by applicant at Kansas City, Mo., as a broker of transportation by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, supra, between Kansas City, on the one hand, and points in the United States, on the other, will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; that applicant is fit, willing, and able to perform such service and to conform to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; and that a license authorizing such operation should be granted.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of section 211 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate license will be issued.

CHAIRMAN PATTERSON dissents.

43 M. C. C.

No. MC-81353 1

MARTIN M. DERR CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION

Submitted April 19, 1942. Decided April 17, 1944

1. Upon further hearing in No. MC-81353, findings in prior report, 22 M. C. C. 830, modified.

2. Applicant found entitled to continue operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of milk and milk products and empty containers, between specified points in Pennsylvania and New York, over irregular routes, by reason of its having been engaged in such operation on June 1, 1935, and continuously since.

3. Applicant found entitled to continue operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of malt beverages and advertising matter, from Shamokin, Pa., to points in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia, and of empty containers in the reverse direction, over irregular routes, by reason of its having been engaged in such operation on July 1, 1935, and continuously since.

4 In No. MC-81353 (Sub-No. 4), proposed extension of operation by applicant as a contract carrier or as a common carrier by motor vehicle, or both, of specified commodities, between points in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, found not consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy, or that public convenience and necessity requires the proposed extension of operation.

5. Holding by applicant of a certificate and a permit approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied.

C. D. Todd, Jr., for applicant.

Frank X. Masterson for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON

BY DIVISION 5:

These proceedings were heard on separate records but were the subject of a single report and recommended order. Applicant filed exceptions to the recommended order of the examiner. Our conclusions differ somewhat from those recommended.

In No. MC-81353, by application filed February 12, 1936, as amended, under the "grandfather" clauses of sections 206 (a) and 209 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, Martin M. Derr, of Milton, Pa., seeks a

This report also includes No. MC-81353 (Sub-No. 4), Martin M. Derr Extension of Operations-New York.

'On further hearing in No. MC-81353.

certificate of public convenience and necessity or a permit, or both, authorizing continuance of operation, as a common or contract carrier, or both, by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, (1) of milk and milk products, supplies and equipment for milk plants and dairies, and empty containers, between points in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and (2) of malt beverages and advertising matter, from Shamokin, Pa., to points in the States above named, and the District of Columbia, and empty malt beverage containers in the reverse direction, over irregular routes.

In No. MC-81353 (Sub-No. 4), by application filed June 21, 1941, as amended, the same applicant seeks a permit or a certificate as a contract carrier or as a common carrier by motor vehicle, or both, in interstate or foreign commerce, over irregular routes, (a) of malt beverages, from Shamokin to points in New York, New Jersey. Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and empty containers in the reverse direction, (b) of milk and milk products, between points in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and West Virginia, and (c) of dairy supplies, from Fairmont, W. Va., and Garfield, N. J., to points in Pennsylvania and New York.

The operation for which authority is sought by such application would, to a large extent, duplicate that which applicant seeks under his "grandfather" application, and it was filed for the purpose of protecting applicant in the event he fails to obtain such rights under his "grandfather" application.

In the prior report in No. MC-81353, 22 M. C. C. 830, applicant was granted a permit authorizing continuance of operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of malt beverages, from Shamokin to Binghamton, N. Y., and empty containers in the reverse direction, over a specified route, and the application in all other respects was denied. By order entered September 7, 1940, No. MC-81353 was, upon petition of applicant, reopened for further hearing. Rail carriers in official classification territory oppose both applications.

In No. MC-81353 (Sub-No. 3), applicant, on January 25, 1941, was issued a permit authorizing the transportation over irregular routes, (a) of fertilizer, feed and ingredients thereof, and burlap bags, from Baltimore and Hagerstown, Md., to points in Pennsylvania and those in New York other than New York, N. Y., and points on Long Island, (b) of insecticides, from Baltimore and Hagerstown and New York, N. Y., to points in the above-specified Pennsylvania and New York territories, and from New York, N. Y., to points in a specified territory in northwest Maryland, also from Charles Town, W. Va., to points in the above-specified territories in New York and Maryland, and (c) of